OP, did you actually read the paper you cite? I read through the paper, and the sound bite from the Economist you quote does not accurately summarize the paper's actual research content. They covered data on time spent in categorized activities, showing that higher compensated people are indeed working more. No data was presented regarding people's satisfaction (or lack thereof) with these activities.
It's hard to find comparisons of job satisfaction surveys for more than a few years, but this article
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/20/most-americans-are-unhappy-at-work/summarizes a recurring study from the Conference Board which shows a significant decline in worker happiness since 1987, with currently less than half of those surveyed saying they're satisfied in their jobs.
My personal take on people who are highly satisfied with their jobs (especially in tech or IT fields) is that they're often limited intellectually, socially, and athletically.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert A. Heinlein
You bring up another false dichotomy that many people use to justify hiring others to do work: "I'll work at my highly compensated job because my compensation per hour > compensation rate of xxx specialist, who I'll hire." This is only true if you do in fact work extra hours rather than do this task. Most of the time this is not true; our labor hours and/or compensation is set, and we pay others while we sit unproductively rather than learn new tasks and broaden our skill set.
Additionally, I'd posit that if you're working so much that you can't take on non-"paid work" tasks, your life/work balance is already skewed, and not favorably.
Even if we were to accept the (very unproven) thesis that some modern jobs offer the equivalent of Veblen's "exploit" satisfaction to workers, I'd say that narrow, specialized stature is a pale, sad shadow of what those historical aristocrats strove for: accomplishment in many areas, engagement in intellect, art, public policy, adventure.
That's my goal for financial independence: to live better, more broadly, to take the offered chance. I don't think I can do that in an office.