I think the author is deliberately conflating two interpretations of "Math is Everywhere." It's hard to argue that it isn't, when we talk about different fields of endeavor. Deep in any remunerative profession, from selling groceries to manufacturing semiconductors, there are quantitative models, and it helps to know at least trigonometry and calculus, if not differential equations, to understand them. But the author isn't actually talking about quantitative models -- this is the bait-and-switch -- he's actually talking about dramatically uneven mathematical education and widespread innumeracy.