If you look at many made-it-from-nothing founders of the companies we know, they rarely start out broke, are often independently wealthy (it's a lot safer to drop out of an ivy-league school with a wealthy family as a backs-stop) or have made significant money from earlier stages in their careers.
Being broke is a huge distraction to most founders, having to focus on the distractions of family, sometimes a spouse and/or kids, and struggling to pay bills - none of that is a good thing for one's ability to focus on getting your startup to any kind of critical mass.
Motivation-by-commitment, as many sales organizations will put it, is more like what's being talked about in the article - that if desperate a smart person will figure out ways to make money and often stabilize some sort of business out of that. But even that is a stretch to claim being an advantage over not being broke.
This is the kind of advice that leads mediocre founders to romanticize ramen-noodles and cheapskate their talent - either getting second tier people or trying to cajole talented engineers into taking much-below-market rate wages.
Obviously it's better for founders to be capital efficient and keep costs low. Being hungry clearly is necessary to success. But if you can get yourself to some degree of financial stability it'll make you more able to focus on what matters building your startup, and if you pay people fairly you'll attract talent and loyalty.