I see your point and I actually agree with it. It was a total whine post and yes, I am very privileged as compared to most of the world.
However, amortized or not, the true cost of taking vacation becomes so explicitly apparent when you are consulting that it's difficult not to think about while ON vacation.
The point, as you're no doubt already aware, is that FT employees "pay" for their vacations as well, except that it's a benefit whose cost is amortized over the entire year, rather than taken as a lump sum during the times they might choose (were they consultants) to stop billing.
There's also the fact that they generally have less flexibility with regard to the amount of time of they're able to take off (and quite often, as to the timing as well), and in most cases certainly can't cash in on unused vacation time (by converting it to raw income) the way consultants can.
So in this context (and given the annual net that you imply you're taking in), it sounds like you're looking for something to gripe and moan about, for the sake of griping and moaning.
I find that I also look at life differently when I am consulting. Anything that takes time suddenly has an implicit price tag. I believe that the original commentator was making a light statement.
In terms of amortized vacation, yes. Employees pay for it throughout the year, and then can draw on it like a small bank account. One of the reasons I went into consulting was for more free time to travel. I don't know of any full time positions that would let me spend 1/4 of the year traveling.
Ah, First World Problems.