Like you, I'm very much against the neo-feudalism in America. And I think I see what you are pointing at, how Albert Brooks is justifying neo-feudalism by telling the serfs they can be as happy as anyone by staying in their lane -- or to quote the Japanese commanding officer in Bridge over the River Kwai: "Be happy in your work."

However, I wonder about pulling the overarching concepts of happiness and the meaning of life into the discussion. One might extrapolate from this article that if everyone had equivalent wealth everyone would be equivalently happy. One might be on more solid ground saying socio-economic inequality is an injustice and let it go at that. I'd argue happiness, purpose, and meaning of life is a Venn diagram intersection with prosperity, income equality, etc -- and that the latter secondarily conditions achieving the former (as indicated in scientific studies) -- and that happiness, purpose, and meaning of life do not move in lockstep either.

That said, I much appreciate your surgical debunking of Brooks' stew of neo-feudalism and pop psychology, and am very glad to have read it.