[obstacle1]

1) The author isn't arguing that. He is objecting to the portrayal of startups as more free, open, and fluid than traditional enterprise. Unless I'm bad at reading the author didn't even mention the ratio of startup:traditional jobs, so that isn't relevant. And the objection wasn't to the fact that all startups are roughly equivalent (which was, though, a point made). The objection was that startups are roughly equivalent to traditional enterprise in structure, form, and execution (i.e. Super Cool Startup is just as non-free, non-open, and non-fluid as Enterprise Shop Inc., and this is systemic). The equivalence comes from the startup scene having been wholly co-opted by a system (VC-istan, anyone?) that amounts to traditional enterprise (formulaic, mass-producing, repeatable templates). This is a textbook binary deconstruction: the startup/corporate dichotomy as it exists in popular consciousness is false.

Food for thought, see pg's comment in this thread: apparently there is now a formula for creativity and rebellion. Questions: if you can formulaically rebel, how is that rebellion? By definition your 'rebellion' is deterministic -- how is that possible? If 'creativity' can come by formula, what are you creating? The 'new' is just a function of what you already knew, i.e., it already existed. So the 'new' is by definition not new at all.

2) Again, the author didn't make this point. He argued that people considering taking a startup job should consciously look through popular delusion and consider the bad with the good. There was no mention that one should or shouldn't take a particular kind of job.