>So instead of engaging or debating with the ideas presented in the piece, you immediately dig into the author's personal life as a way of disagreeing with it?
Parent commenter did exactly what you requested, before digging into the author. Noting that people don't have the wealth this article presumes, is a valid debate against the piece.
---
The article mentions that hobbies arise out of disposable income and free time gained from economic prosperity, and then was lost when the economy faltered. But the article then claims "The American economy has fared better in recent years" -- I'm not convinced that's an accurate picture.
Americans (as people) are not necessarily better off if America (the economy) does better. Today, most Americans (people) are still struggling financially, now often more than before, despite the fact that "the economy" has "recovered". But you can't see that from a desk in Manhattan, it's not visible if your only looking at census statistics or property values.
Which has created a weird disconnect where people who can sustainable (but only barely) afford housing / food / medical are routinely described as "middle class", even though they have far less disposable income and/or leisure time than their counterparts from the 1970's, or 1990's.
The recent explosion in ultra-high costs of housing, medical, and education likely play a role in this, absorbing money that previously would have become "leisure" spending. And the cash necessary to cover those costs seems to come by additional working through what used to be people's leisure time.