Since quite a few here spend 10+ hours a day in front of their monitors and stress their eyes with it would you consider it worthwhile the investment to go with a LaCie, NEC or EIZO display instead of the common HP/DELL office screens?
The biggest advantage even if you do not work with imaging seems to be the build in colorimeter to work with natural light condition changes. Same with a good chair I am talking about the long term health effects of it.
These are just some of the issues that illustrate why it is inherently difficult for someone else to answer a subjective question like this for you.
At least ninety percent of everybody gets by just fine with a standard cheap 1440x900 LCD. I can tell, because nobody died from running CRTs either, and those were mostly worse. I'd start thinking "fancy monitor time" if and only if somebody was getting massive headaches or something from looking at the displays, and even then only after adjusting heights, putting up blinds on their windows, etc.
Of course, the expensive chairs always give me a backache, too... I always ended up stealing "uncomfortable" cheap ones from the conference rooms or whatever.
I've been fortunate enough to have a four monitor setup for the past several years. I had a 4x EIZO LCD setup at my previous firm and a 4x Dell LCD setup at my current position. I am not doing imaging or composition work so precise color temperature is not an issue for me.
Subjectively I found minimal differences between the EIZOs and decent spec Dell flat panels. Nothing that made a daily use difference.
If I had to choose between 2 high-end LCDs versus 4 mid-range LCDs, I would pick the 4 mid-range panels without hesitation. The increase in productivity is awesome when you can have your editor, a browser, documentation, and program output or debugger up all at the same time.
FYI I've had eye-strain issues with both the EIZOs and Dells. The panel doesn't make a difference here, it's all about the ambient lighting, glare, and your seating position.