This is posed in too absolute terms. People should, among their aptitudes, pick some activity that has the prospect of a fulfilling professional life. Aptitude and personal preference represent one aspect of such fulfillment. Market fit is, however, most definitely relevant towards professional success.
The fact is people do just fine majoring in things such as studio arts and literature. It could very well mean that they don't end up working professionally in those fields, but that is OK. Some of these people end up working in the same companies as their peers, some end up in menial jobs after college, some become your boss (and some do all or none of these).
And I am not even mentioning the fact that at age 18, many many students have yet to find themselves and settle on a major, let alone a career path.
I can be the best plate-spinner in the world, but I still need to provide for the people that depend on me. People should start with the set of jobs that can support them and their (future! sometimes unexpected!) family and then pick the things they have aptitude at.
Only to an extent. I am, for example, a better skier than I am programmer. Yet it would be financial folly for me to follow that aptitude. Pretty good skier make on avg. $0 a year while pretty good programmers make a very comfortable living.
Do STEM degrees yield more ROI? Perhaps, but if the article is attempting to help an individual student frame their thinking about what to major in, it is very bad advice.
People should follow their aptitudes. Study what compels them and what they're talented in, regardless of statistical ROI's that apply NOT to individuals but to a population of people.
I've seen it a lot, good students who force themselves into degree programs for subjects they have no interest in: going to pre-law or pre-med or finance or engineering, not because they love the subject matter but for status and for the hope of a "well-paid" career (often propelled by parents wishes).
We may very well need more STEM folks, but what we DON'T need is more STEM folks who are passionless, untalented duds who are in it for the money/status.