I think if that's the case holistically, that what you like to do that other people think is "work" literally can not be monetized in the current economy, then that's just a tragedy. If the economy hasn't developed a model for what you uniquely like to do then I think that's just a very unfortunate reality. However, I wonder if perhaps you're taking it too literally. It's quite possible that what you like to do has manifested itself in economically unpalatable ways generally, but if you thought creatively you MAY find that there are economically beneficial places that aren't so obvious where you fit perfectly.
It is a tragedy, and that's why I find this essay naive, arrogant, and simply dishonest. Passions don't all have the same economic viability. "Do what you love" is trite and useless advice.
I think part of it was growing up with a thesbian mother and painter father and seeing first hand how doing what you love isn't enough to feed yourself. It stings a little for other people to claim that you don't need to "work" if you just do what you love. I don't bemoan Paul Graham for his success... but its insulting.
Interestingly enough, PG also loves painting almost more than anything. He wrote a book about it called "Hackers and Painters". Extrapolate whatever you'd like from that fact.
