Nah, the article is instead making the entirely conventional point that most people who lose homes they actually could afford at one time, do so because they first lose their job. It is not a matter of wages dropping, or jobs - the first are higher than ever and there are more of the latter than ever. But there is always some churn, some people lose their job and it takes them time to get a new one, which may not pay what the old one did. People move down the economic ladder as others move up; it happens. And that churning generates most foreclosure volume, in normal times. (Well, another set of foreclosures actually come from very old "tear down" houses that nobody wants to live in - after grandma dies, the kids are out of state, it sits on the market, and ends up with the bank - but those are tiny houses in rural places, under 100k).
The wave of full priced houses being lost by employed people who just took on way more than they could chew in the bubble, really just hasn't hit yet. Or more exactly, is just getting going on the low end. Which is not to say it won't be a problem. But the backround rate of foreclosures has other causes, which are always there - obsolete houses and generational turnover on the one hand, and ordinary job market turbulence on the other.