As a result of this stunning progress, much of the world is far wealthier than it used to be. This doesn't just mean that many of us can consume more; it also means that many more people can pursue work that is intellectually or artistically stimulating. It will of course be even better when we have become wealthy enough that people the world over will have access to better, more fulfilling work. But it is already worth recognizing and celebrating, and I don't see how doing so implies any dehumanization of those who still labour at tedious or back-breaking jobs.
As for devaluing the work it pretends to elevate, what Tokumitsu means is that people who love what they do are sometimes willing to do it for less money, which in her eyes is a sure sign of exploitation. But how much people earn at different jobs depends on a great number of factors. One of them is that if a lot of people find a certain kind of work enjoyable—say, writing—but there is only enough market demand for a small fraction of them, then many (typically those with comparatively less talent or experience) will be willing to work for less money. There is nothing sinister in this, just simple supply and demand.
Fortunately for people like me, many of us in the industrialized world, even if we aren't wealthy, are generally wealthy enough to make this trade-off. If we want to, we can work at part-time jobs that allow us to live modestly by modern standards (but very well by historical standards) while we pursue the work that we find more completely satisfying, that we perhaps consider to be a calling. Working for less money for a while doesn't mean that I'm being exploited, and pursuing my personal happiness doesn't mean that I don't care about the plight of those with fewer opportunities—especially those who live in countries with substantially less freedom, and hence less wealth. Indeed, in my case, I hope that the ideas I write about can help us all become even freer and wealthier than ever.