I disagree with the editorialising from the title comment. To me it doesn't seem to celebrate or even opine anything, and that's actually kind of frustrating, because it's obviously bad that people are intending to work longer, regardless of their actual preferences.
Having read the article, to me it's not entirely obvious whether people feel that (A) they don't have enough to save regardless of their intentions (B) they feel saving for retirement is futile for whatever reason, or (C) even if they had extra money, they would prefer to spend the extra on here and now.
The article kind of hints that it's more B or C than A, but it isn't really explicit, and I think that would be the really interesting part of this story to report.
I agree the article seems very out of touch, and the reason I think is because it reports this in a very neutral way. If it made clear that the author thought this was a bad thing that was happening, would you still think it was out of touch?