I actually think the article fails, because it's based on a tautological assumption.
"To be clear, you should learn to code if:1. You love writing and debugging and refining and documenting and supporting code."
But, you don't know this until you've learned to code. So, it's clearly something that if you try coding, you'll ever realise it's something you're passionate about wanting to know more about until you're good at it or that it's something you hate with a passion.
In my case, there are probably lots of things that I'd be passionate about if I did them. I can certainly think of a few jobs in different areas I'd really enjoy doing. However, I've had the opportunity to try coding from an early age, enjoyed it and stuck with it.
None of that is a reason why people who don't yet know how to code should take it up as a profession. Perhaps they'd find carpentry just as rewarding if they tried it. Or writing books. Or any of a number of things. What should be said, however, is if you get the chance you should try it and it's OK to hate it.
All other things aside, pointing out that programming often pays well (as well as often requiring long hours) isn't a bad thing. It encourages people to try it. I know someone from who decided they wanted to be a dentist at age 12, simply because he'd heard it was a well paying job. It might not be the best reason, but it got him into the profession.
But certainly, if coding was on a school curriculum, more people would try it earlier on, just as people are exposed to woodwork and story writing at school. This appears to be code.org's objective, and it seems like a good one as long as they're not advocating make coding mandatory even when you realise it's not something you enjoy or have an innate skill for.