Now applying this logic to our lives, does it not imply that if I agree to perform a task for a set amount of dollars that I agree, tacitly, on the value of the task? Generally speaking, of course. Now, does it not also imply that agreeing to work at a bookstore for $6.75 an hour, regardless of the day's task load, that I agree my time, and by extension, my very existence, is worth the pitiful sum aforementioned? If I do something twice the speed of a coworker and half the speed of another (say, shelving Sociology books or self-help manuals) for the same amount of time, we each receive the same recompense. And something about it does not seem right. For, as I've already said, we are quantifying that most precious, invaluable of human assets as we would a length or rope or means of conveyance. And most people, I hope, don't like that idea.
The fact that we disagree with that which we agree to do amounts to Orwellian doublethink or, as I've already asserted, mauvais foi, bad faith. We know on a very real, very fundamental level that our lives are not, cannot be worth so little, yet we agree to prostitute ourselves for the alleged promise of benefits derived from services rendered. Yet we all know full well that if someone gets paid $8.00 for every hour he or she spends reading a book or watching a movie or chatting with a friend while manning the front desk of an unpopular hotel and someone else gets paid $6.00 to stand up all day over a hot, greasy fast-food griddle, slaving and sweating over food he or she will not taste, something is amiss.
And we're told, the world's not fair and stop complaining, be grateful for what you have and the like, which are, in their way, very valid approaches towards this life we call home, temporary as it may be. Ultimately, though, we dislike the idea that are life is only worth X dollars an hour. We know, to ourselves at least, we are worth so, so much more than that. We would pay many times what we earn for additional hours on earth, I imagine.
What hourly wage forces the individual to understand is the vast indifference of the world to the individual. Most anyone can shelve books or flip burgers, so if you wont do it for six dollars, someone else will. Otherwise the pay wouldn't be as low. People do not particularly enjoy the understanding that they aren't worth anything extraordinary because the individual knows, positively and completely knows and feels that he or she is too precious to be quantified, divided, appraised, and packaged. We are not, to borrow John Lydon's lyric, "a crap in a cling-wrap," or, at the very least, we don't want to admit it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mark Sahm
Sadly, I recognize what you're saying. How can a CEO earn $600 an hour, while a fast food cook earns $6, while both exert the same amount of energy?
I think at the root of what you're talking about is that the freedoms we enjoy as Americans are also the ones that bind us to the system of wages. There is no escaping it unless you decide to be homeless, pull a Walden, or strike it rich somehow.
However, there are ways to use the system to your advantage. This was a well thought out blog... maybe you should think about building something bigger from it.
2 - Dave Nalle
>>Sadly, I recognize what you're saying. How can a CEO earn $600 an hour, while a fast food cook earns $6, while both exert the same amount of energy?<<
Because the fast food cook has a GED, spends his off time hanging with his high school junkie friends, and has no higher goals or ambition, while the CEO has worked for 40 years, neglected his family, barely seen his children grow up, worked 14 hour days and taken work home on the weekends, went to college, took graduate courses, took special executive training, went on godawful corporate retreats, moved accross the country for a better job 3-5 times and suffered a couple of divorces in the process, and was willing to cut throats and kiss ass to get to the point where he's rewarded with $600 an hour in the last 10 years before he dies early from a heart attack or stroke because of the tension from the enormous responsibilites which come with a job like that.
In short, it's because they DON'T exert the same amount of energy. The corporate exec has exerted more mental energy for a longer time and done it more efficiently and the cook exerts the minimum amount of physical energy needed to get his job done and puts his brain on hold. You might be surprised at how many corporate executives wouldn't mind spending a week as a cook in a burger joint.
Dave
3 - Mark Sahm
Okay, point taken. So I was focusing more on the present, instead of what got them there... I know that nothing good is achieved without sacrifice.
But really, most CEO's basically spend all their time (if they're even in the office) on the phone, in meetings with associates, or sending e-mails--- kind of like how a teenage girl spends her free time!
My original point was second guessing how salary is determined more by what you've done, instead of what you're doing.
Hard work is irrelevant unless you have the opportunity to go with it.
4 - Mark Saleski
let's change the lower-end job to schoolteacher.
...who has:
1. a bachelor's degree
2. a master's degree
3. 20 years teaching experience
and still takes home crap for pay.
i have no idea how to fix the situation, but it never fails to disgust me.
5 - JR
You might be surprised at how many corporate executives wouldn't mind spending a week as a cook in a burger joint.
A week, huh? Wow, that's quite a rejection of the executive lifestyle.
6 - SFC SKI
They'd probably still draw CEO pay for that week, too.
7 - Tom French
Sadly, I recognize what you're saying. How can a CEO earn $600 an hour, while a fast food cook earns $6, while both exert the same amount of energy?
The reality is that if the fast food cook wouldn't work for 6 dollars an hour, the CEO couldn't make 600. Who brings in the profits for mcdonald's ceo?
Another sad point. The fry cook I'm sure has a car which costs him above his means, the best cell phone, the most stylish clothes, 50 million CDs, etc... If he stepped out of our consumer society (constantly buying the next crap item or fad) he wouldn't have to take shit labor to keep on the treadmill.
Down with consumerism!
8 - Dave Nalle
Yes, down with consumerism. Let's make sure that cook doesn't have a job at all, and that there isn't even a McDonalds for thim to go spend his unemployment at when he needs a chea[ meal.
Dave
9 - Tom French
Oooooh, God Forbid a world without McDonald's! The horror!
10 - Dave Nalle
Hateful though it is, McDonalds and places like it do serve a function in society. If every one of them went away what would the underclass do for jobs and where would harried parents eat in peace while their tykes play on the playscape?
Dave
11 - Richard
I never understood why we value someone pretending to be someone (actors) over someone who saves lives or attempt to protect the weak.
12 - Natalie Davis
Very thought-provoking piece (and thanks to the person who gave us the teacher example; I know too many hardworking, educated people having a hard time in the horrid workforce). This piece comes at an interesting time for me: I just quit my shitjob because I couldn't put up with the hell anymore. I can't survive a life swamped in bad faith. I either saved myself or... I don't even want to think about it. There was no other choice, no way I could stay in that awful situation working for such an awful corporation.
Of course this leaves me unemployed and forced to find something, anything. Hopefully it will be better. Hopefully it will be something. Hopefully it will be fast. I am in a mess, but at least my brain is clear, and on my final day, I felt a wee bit of happiness -- let's call it good faith -- something I haven't felt since before my dad died 20 months ago. Anyone know of any good-faith, worthwhile telecommuting gigs?
13 - Mark Sahm
Are there any CEO's or fast food chefs out there reading this blog who want to chime in for themselves?
...
...
*crickets chirping*
14 - Natalie Davis
A guess: The CEOs are swilling martinis at a late lunch or doing business on the links. The fast-fooders are probably too busy working so that they don't get evicted or lose their lights or phones at month's end.
15 - Tom French
Hateful though it is, McDonalds and places like it do serve a function in society. If every one of them went away what would the underclass do for jobs and where would harried parents eat in peace while their tykes play on the playscape?
Dave
They serve a function in THIS consumerist society that only serves to expand the gap between rich and poor. In a society where people grow their own food, they don;t have to be slaves to fat cat CEO's.
PS and while your hard working example of a CEO may be a small reality, my guess would be that most of them are benefits of nepotism.
16 - Eric Berlin
Erik - This is a brilliant piece -- one of the best I've read here on BlogCritics: a great combination of soul and indignation and intellect and wry humor.
I think the process of writing and of reading this statement does a small part in throwing off the shackles of society's agreed upon system of rewarding and degrading and getting by.
Finally - There's an awful lot of awful stereotyping of minimum wage earners (brain-dead consumption-mad junkies) and CEOs both.
Is it possible to have a real discussion around here every now and again?
17 - Natalie Davis
What horrid CEO stereotypes? A lot of their business IS done over cocktails and/or meals and on the golf course. Now, the fast-food worker stereotypes offered here... THEY are disgusting.
Oh, and if someone is on unemployment, going to McDonald's is a totally irresponsble use of limited funds. Most times (and we do not and will not get unemployment bennies), we live on ramen noodles -- seven packs (the equivalent of fourteen servings) for a buck at the Safeway. And if baby carrots are on sale, woo hoo: Sorta healthy vegetable-noodle soup!
18 - Eric Berlin
Well, yeah, more streotypes on the worker end... but it's silly to talk about the "typical" work-'till-you-drop head-stomping CEO dynamo. Real life isn't that easy to categorize.
By the way: I've spent many a month in my day getting by on Mac 'n Cheese, frozen veg, and chopped up ham. Serve with water, coffee, or cheap supermarket wine (Note: we're talking California here, so it's not bad at all), and you're ready to spend the day browsing Craig's List and waiting for Hotmail to pop with a job offer.
19 - Natalie Davis
Supermarket wine? Ham? You were living large.
20 - Eric Berlin
Yes, I never said I was on poverty's doorstep! Just unemployed and underemployed for a number of years. I'm still paying off the credit card debt for some of that "high living" (ha ha)...
That said, you can't beat "Two Buck Chuck" at Trader Joe's... $2 for a bottle of wine is not the worst way to spend an evening if you're looking to conserve the funds.
21 - Natalie Davis
I dunno. Seems to me $2 is worth saving. Can't waste it on frivolous shit like booze. I can grab a book off of the shelf and entertain myself for free -- if I can afford the leisure time. And, no, many people can't.
22 - Eric Berlin
Well, my hat's off to you, Natalie, and your Spartan ways. I'd think you'd get on rather well with Henry Rollins, particularly if you were into punk and hardcore music.
23 - Sobriquet Magazine
I share Mark Saleski's disgust with the low wages given to our nation's schoolteachers. In fact, a sizable chunk of the people engaged in low-paying wage-work are schoolteachers trying to supplement their salaries. I mean, unless they choose to abandon a noble profession they truly enjoy, the only "extra" jobs available to teachers after school or during the summer are the low-skill wage positions you find at fast-food joints or retail stores.
24 - Sobriquet Magazine
Sorry to double-post, but I neglected to thank everyone for the kind things you've said about my writing. I feel wonderful right now. Thanks so much!
25 - parker
I just wanted to say thanks for the thought provoking article. I have always wondered why the actual labor decreases with an increase in pay.