In essence, bohemianism represented a personal, cultural and social reaction to the bourgeois life. And, once the latter was all but swept away by the maelstrom that was the 1960s, the former was doomed, too.Perhaps we need a word to refer to the "bohemians"-who-aren't-really-bohemians, in that, whilst engaging with culture outside of the feeding trough of the mainstream, they do live a comfortable bourgeois life, with respectable jobs, stable living arrangements and disposable income to spend on accoutrements such as limited-edition trainers, designer glasses, fancy bicycles and Apple products. How about the "avant-bourgeoisie"?
And what's the alternative? Unpretentiously consuming Coldplay records and TV sitcoms because it's good enough for everybody else and you don't want to be the sort of wanker who's too good for that? Some kind of cultural Jante law?
Is there a confusion here between class and culture? It seems like the article is arguing that the bourgeoisie and the bohemians began as distinct socio-economic classes, but over time "bohemian" has come to mean someone that rejects bourgeois culture. That sets up what is only an apparent paradox, because a person can both be a member of a social class and reject its cultural norms: in fact it is almost the job of the young person to do so.
Some working-class teens reject working-class culture too.
"Fauxhemian" covers it nicely.
"avant-bourgeoisie" has much too positive connotations. How about "fucking hipsters"?