Every single sentence in this article can be picked apart, but doing a line-by-line critique would miss the larger problems with the article. The author assumes that more productivity is always good, even though Japan has been suffering a lack of economic demand for most of the last 26 years. Big gains in productivity would only make the lack of demand worse.
If the goal of Japanese policy makers is to boost demand, and that does seem like a wise goal, then keeping 50,000 workers employed at Sharp seems like a smart bet, compared to keeping 100 people employed at some nimble, fast-moving startup.
More so, Japanese electronics firms still hold great global market share, so there is reason to think that their productivity is more than adequate to compete in the global markets.
And this sentence can only be understood if your political beliefs align with the political beliefs of that author:
"If Japan’s bailouts remind you of the U.S.'s rescue of its auto companies, you’re not alone. There is a strong argument that the auto bailouts only delayed the day when General Motors and Chrysler lose out to nimbler competitors like Tesla Motors."
Right, but the USA bailout of the auto companies seems to have been a good bet. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were saved, and the companies bounced back and paid off their debts, and the USA was able to sell its stake in GM at a profit. So it was win-win-win all the way: the taxpayers won, the workers won, and the economy won.