I had to look this up, and the term "misemployed" seems silly. Is a job only a "true job" only if it met some millennial definition of fulfillment and "flourishing"?

In the article, someone dressed as a hot dog doing marketing is misemployed because it's not "contributing to human welfare and flourishing".

If that's the case, then the century-long history of employment in post-industrial-revolution society is a story of misemployment. Is tightening a nut repeatedly 40 hours a week under the job guarantee of a 1950s GM true "flourishing"? And is the 1850s Irish farmer racing to harvest blighted potatoes misemployed as well? (Perhaps not, since the survival state creates an certain "authenticity" versus the "banality" of guaranteed life?)