The point of the post is that we aren't in a labor bubble, because the amount of value created by a programmer is much higher than the programmer's salary. For instance, suppose that a contractor installing marble countertops on luxury houses out in the desert gets paid 100k a year. It turns out that the value of those countertops is below 100k a year. This could be used to suggest that the jobs themselves will disappear (or salaries must drop dramatically), as the value they generate isn't sufficient to justify that pay.

Now suppose installing those countertops generate 200k a year in value, but that it is relatively easy. That would suggest that salaries could drop even though there is a surplus of value in the existing salary structure. However, it wouldn't suggest that salaries need to drop because value generated isn't sufficient to justify the pay level.

I think that's the point here - that the amount of value generated is so great that programmer salaries could remain high. It doesn't necessarily mean then will, just that we aren't in a salary bubble where salaries are higher than value generated.

True. We should have fought it. We should still be fighting it. If commoditization is doomed to happen, then there's a structure (called a union) that enables it to happen on our terms rather than theirs.

Your argument seems to ignore that market forces agreed that engineers were underpaid, and it was only by illegal collusion that their wages were kept to what they were.