Sure, there are stark anecdotes, but on the whole the aphorism applies: a thing is worth only and exactly what another will give for it.
To an economist, a transaction's worth is defined by the point at which the supply and demand curves intersect. The supply curve depends strongly on how much $$$ an employer has available to it. $1M for Goldman Sachs or $300K for Google is peanuts; $30K for the neighborhood bookstore may break the bank. So someone could easily be paid 6 figures at the former simply to keep them off the market and prevent them from working for a competitor, even though most people would say that activity is far less socially beneficial than becoming a primary school teacher and educating dozens of children.
To an anthropologist, all human beings have the same worth, and so it doesn't make sense that the top-line revenues of your employer matter so much more than your bottom-line contributions to society. Someone who is doing productive things, whether they do so on behalf of a powerful organization or not, should be rewarded more than someone who is not doing productive things.
I think the author goes too far in suggesting a widespread realignment of society - I wouldn't really want to live in an anarcho-communist utopia either. But one of his central points was that the dominant discourse in American society is to assume that if people are paying for work, it must have value, and your comment is ample evidence of that.
This statement misses the point entirely. People are obviously being paid and that is why they doing the job.
But what we're talking about is the situation where someone is being paid for work that is worthless and unnecessary to those that are paying them. Mostly because it isn't a person paying them, it's an organization -- an organization dysfunctional enough to be paying for work it doesn't need.
Exactly. Arguing that capitalism is "freedom" is doublespeak, particularly against anarchism advocates like David Graeber. When you must obey a boss's commands all day, your opinion is unimportant; the boss decides what your time is worth. You are the boss's rented instrument, regardless whether you think the work is useless or harmful. Under management's watchful eye, there's no free speech at work; so you'd better not discuss with your coworkers.
Exactly why people want to redistribute power more equally, just as in the ages of kings, slaveowners, totalitarian parties, top-down fake democracies, etc.
If one wants to consume food, resources etc. produced by other people, one has to be willing to offer something back.
McDonald's provides an entrepreneur all the equipment, infrastructure, consumables, staff, even customer base - all one has to do is show up, flip burgers, and earn $8/hr. Of course there are rules to using all of those resources, and McD's stockholders get a cut (hey, they're providing all that stuff); if you don't like it, you can leave.
You can't "redistribute power more equally". Most people don't, in reality, want it: they refuse the responsibilities that come with ownership & liability, hence they get less of the revenue. Most people don't want equal distribution of power, they want to receive more wealth without earning it.
What I learned from that is, without training the workers should not normally be entrusted with power. It's in nobody's best interest.
What you do with this information, I suppose, depends on your political leanings. You can emphasize either side of the story, and be sort of correct.