Yes there is a limit to how much you can put into a retirement account that isn't taxed by the government, but there is no limit on how much of your income you can save, caveat you need some of it to live on.
And while saving and investing can get as complicated as you want it can also be greatly simplified with funds investing.
The guy in this article talks about how to safely retire you must have saved up eleven times your annual income. Which is wrong: the key value is about thirty times your annual consumption if you want to transition to full time retirement (with no market labor involved). And if you add in maybe $10k of market labor a year, that amount of required savings drops very sharply. $20k, and hell, you're probably able to increase your nest egg if you watch your consumption at all.
Edit: You wanted the rebalancing funds (those are the component funds.) The rebalancing funds are called "LifeStrategy" - see VASGX for an example.
The main question he seems to be asking is how the average American is expected to effectively plan for retirement when companies no longer feel they can manage pension funds with professional investors.
The real answer to this, IMHO, is that companies definitely could provide pension plans. Some do (Chevron comes to mind). They just don't want to because it's cheaper to just give your employees a 401(k) and only put company money into it if your employees contribute.
Companies didn't transition to 401(k)s because pensions were impossible to pull off. They transitioned to 401(k)s because they realized they could still sell their benefit plan as offering a "retirement plan" to their employees, but the majority of their employees wouldn't even utilize the matching, thereby saving them tons of cash.
+ The character of work and the workforce changed markedly in America over the years, from an economy where a man employed by BigCo could reasonably be assumed to work for BigCo until the day he died, to an economy where men and women work, labor force participation is often interrupted, and stints exceeding 3 to 5 years at a company are unusual enough to be remarked upon, to say nothing of 40+ years.
+ Defined-benefits pensions come bundled with a few other expectations, such as lifetime employment and tenure, which are sort of on the outs at US companies.
+ Defined-benefits pensions are highly correlated to workplaces which are toxic to work in, because you'll frequently find yourself surrounded by clockpunching deadwood whose sole goal in working is not doing anything to upset their chances of making pension. If you've worked in government or a union shop, you know what I mean. If you haven't, try doing software development for a week in a union shop, then evaluate whether receiving a pension is sufficient to have yourself sentenced to doing that for 40 years.
I always saved the majority of my income. Last year I retired from my corporate job at the age of 40. It really is possible to do.
That said, he doesn't cover variable costs as much as he should (rent changes, taxes, sudden medical issue) this is something that fixed income folks have lived with so there is a lot of stuff out there for managing those events as well.