Just finished reading "Reconsidering Manual Labor".  It go me thinking about people I have known and circumstances I have observed.  Over the years many people deplored the hard work that they had to perform and encouraged their children to "better themselves".  Over the past century education has become more accessible and before the rise of computers much of what has become cubicle work was a necessary component of lubricating the wheels of commerce.  In other words, paper shuffling was value-add.  With the widespread of adoption of communications and information technologies, much of that work is automated.  The cubicle farms are nurtured not for the benefit of the organization but to maintain the sense of importance for the managers.  No manager will reduce the head count because doing so would diminish his stature.

In high school the choice of careers was more dictated by the perceived status and income than any core interest.  One school friend had no aptitude for biology, nor much of an interest in people, but he became a doctor because of the status and high income.  He has gone on to become the CEO of a health insurance company.  Whilst and academically less talented class-mate who had all the attributes that one would desire in a doctor wasn't admitted to med-school on account lesser academic credentials.  He was so determined that he trained to become a nurse.

The debate should not be about whether the labor is manual or otherwise.  It should be about rendering value.  Value as perceived by the paying customer.  The very basics of economics is about value and exchange of representations of that value. The foundations of trade and commerce through the centuries has always been about creating value.  Our labors should be directed to that end to the best of our abilities and talents.  There is no other lasting way.