Does "doing what you love" devalue work and hurt workers?

Apparently... though I'm not sure I agree with the definitions here. The basic argument is that the value in work is reflected not in self actualization but how well it serves others. But why can't you love solving the problems others have? And wouldn't it be far more efficient and sustainable to love doing so? (Slate via Instapundit)

There’s little doubt that “do what you love” (DWYL) is now the unofficial work mantra for our time. The problem with DWYL, however, is that it leads not to salvation but to the devaluation of actual work—and more importantly, the dehumanization of the vast majority of laborers.

Superficially, DWYL is an uplifting piece of advice, urging us to ponder what it is we most enjoy doing and then turn that activity into a wage-generating enterprise. But why should our pleasure be for profit? And who is the audience for this dictum?

DWYL is a secret handshake of the privileged and a worldview that disguises its elitism as noble self-betterment. According to this way of thinking, labor is not something one does for compensation but is an act of love. If profit doesn’t happen to follow, presumably it is because the worker’s passion and determination were insufficient. Its real achievement is making workers believe their labor serves the self and not the marketplace. . . . If we believe that working as a Silicon Valley entrepreneur or a museum publicist or a think-tank acolyte is essential to being true to ourselves, what do we believe about the inner lives and hopes of those who clean hotel rooms and stock shelves at big-box stores? The answer is: nothing.

But as Glenn Reynolds points out - "Well, there’s work, and then there’s work. Work need not be self-actualizing to be valuable, to the worker and to others. But even when you love your work as much as I love mine, there are days when you’d really rather just stay in bed."