The author is perceptive in identifying the large swaths of unrecognized labor that are necessary to make creative work possible. And she makes an interesting

The author is perceptive in identifying the large swaths of unrecognized labor that are necessary to make creative work possible. And she makes an interesting point about how the mantra of "do what you love" can lead to career moves that have unintended consequences for the people making them, including those in academia and those pursuing internships in fields that are saturated with talent, in which they're bound to be paid very little for a long time. But she goes too far in attributing responsibility to the idea that we should be doing what we love. She shows her sympathy for this idea at the very end: If we acknowledged all of our work as work, we could set appropriate limits for it, demanding fair compensation and humane schedules that allow for family and leisure time. ... And if we did that, more of us could get around to doing what it is we really love. If her main point is that people should demand fair compensation, I agree. Her angle seems to be that people should not naively be led into submitting to unpromising, low-wage employment because of romantic notions such as "do what you love." They should not unwittingly allow themselves to become tools for other people's financial betterment. But I think she misidentifies what has led to problems she describes and in doing so has underestimated the challenge. The main culprits for all of the very-low-end jobs are as likely to be automation, globalization, and a lack of regulation of large corporations and the financial services industry. Pushing back on low wages by being conscious of how "do what you love" can be used as a tool underpay people is sound personal advice, but I do not think it will go very far to fix things at a societal level.