That doesn't follow at all. The value of employment was dramatically lower in 1880 or 1910 than it is today. The value proposition was much worse for the worker, in regards to the harshness of the work, the compensation, and the worker protection laws (near complete lack thereof). You can now purchase a far greater standard of living with far easier work and far fewer hours worked. The difference is that there was zero social safety net a century ago. If you didn't work back then, the suffering was dramatically greater and it would increase your mortality rate astronomically. Today if I choose not to work, I can get free food, free healthcare, free or near-free shelter, and numerous other benefits. A debate can certainly be had about the extent of those benefits. However having grown up in one of the poorest regions in the US, I knew plenty of families that existed solely based on welfare programs and never worked, they were masters at gaming the welfare state. Today millions of people are faking disability to leech off of SS disability. Such things simply did not exist previously, you either worked or else suffered immensely.
leisure != idleness
I think that's overly reductive, but I'm having trouble pinning down why (in the terms laid out by the article) there is a crisis rather than a shifting market.