I'll admit that I may have minimized his larger point that technically speaking, society at large can provide basic needs fairly easily. However, as Dave indicated, that's just not something that will happen; income disparity is woefully bad these days, and our society is not one in which that's going to change anytime soon.
Thus, in my opinion, Page is seeing the world from the convenient position of someone who hasn't had to think twice about money in many years. (And good for him, he deserves it.) He doesn't seem to grasp the reality of living and working in the U.S. economy. A big problem we have is underemployment, yet he's espousing that as a great idea.
His comment that people needing to feel useful is accurate, but his notion of giving more people part-time jobs to placate them strikes me as condescending, and as I said in the piece, myopic. How many households are there there days that subsist on only one full-time income? How many would survive on two part-time incomes? Do these part-time jobs come with full benefits? Medical/dental, paid vacation, 401k matching?
And his idea of simply reducing the amount of time people work would be great, except there are very few people who can afford to do that. Are employers suddenly going to pay everyone for extra time off? Too many won't even pay for maternity leave. (Years ago, I once had to burn a vacation day to get my wisdom teeth out.)
Perhaps we do live in a time of abundance, but I don't think the middle class isn't seeing much of it, and as far as I can tell, Page doesn't understand that.