We are, in practice, saying the same thing, and in agreement I believe. If the employer was paying a living wage, then Quats (or any other receptionist) wouldn't need to rely on outside sources for life essentials, like rent and healthcare. She'd pay for those out of her earnings, like anyone else. The reason why the employer can pay less, is because there are other people that are better subsidized by their support network, rather than paying for their own expenses. It depresses the price point at which people will trade their time for money, down to Quats $13/hr, which nobody anywhere can live on alone, without support. This is kinda sensitive to me right now, because I am helping a friend out in NYC, whose parents have both passed recently, and she and her boyfriend just broke up. She's a successful actor (extra) and makeup artist and glass artist and musician and and and and... her money comes from a lot of different places. But she is completely alone. She has to pay her rent. She has to pay for her own healthcare. She has to pay for her own internet/phone and utilities. Etc. It's hard. It is panic-inducing. She's constantly on the verge of losing everything, and she's in her 40's. But she does all of these things because it keeps her solvent. She literally can't take a 40-hour a week job for even $25/hr because she has zero support/subsidizing from family/partner to keep her finances in the black. She gets her $600/day for being an extra on a TV show or movie, then goes home to make a glass commission, before going to DJ at a roller rink, and applies for art grants and other opportunities while laying in bed at night before going to sleep. It's vividly clear when working with someone who DOESN'T have those subsidies to fall back on.
Wallerstein again: - Subsistence includes gardening at home or assembling Ikea furniture - it's stuff that you would have to pay for but you aren't. - Piecework is selling shit on Etsy, breaking up cartons of cigarettes to sell on street corners, babysitting for your neighbors, anything you make money at but not regularly. - Work-in-kind is anything that you would normally be doing except you can't because you're earning wages so someone else is doing it for you. - Wages are paid employment from a regular employer, either by hour or by item. - Influence is anything you do that makes you more valuable to your community, family or larger social unit, or that makes your community, family or larger social unit more valuable compared to others. These are not exclusive categories. Wallerstein's argument is that everyone's existence is some blend of all of this, and that they are interchangeable. For example, if you eat a lot of stuff out of your garden, babysit your kid brother and make dinners, you are participating in an economy even though you aren't drawing wages. Further, the more of a wage economy you wish to have, the more of the non-wage economy you need to address through other means. For example, the invention of washing machines, supermarkets and other labor-saving creations released a lot of potential wage-earning by freeing up work-in-kind. This tedious article presupposes that at some point in the near future, "anything you do that makes you more valuable to your community" will replace everything else. It doesn't take much of a sense of anthropology to see that the more "first world" your economy, the more emphasis is placed on wages and the greater the de-emphasis on everything else. So it should come as no surprise that as the available wages decrease, the utility of other forms of income come to the fore. and if you are "completely alone" your alternate income streams are thin. And here's the thing. Civilization concentrates in cities because of network effects. The opportunities are greater. This is why cities tend to fill up with the young, and the higher the inequality, the more likely those young are sucking down someone else's wages from the hinterlands. There simply aren't many places where you can make a living as a makeup artist. Full stop. Unfortunately, those places tend to be the ones where out-of-towner rich kids suppress everyone's earnings potential. ...she bloody well could in Akron, Ohio. But she doesn't want to be in Akron, and I don't blame her. 'cuz the "being an extra" thing ($600? Friend of mine bought Alfred Molina for $1250; I've never seen extras paid more than $150 a day) and the "DJ at a roller rink" thing and the makeup artist thing are donezo.There are five kinds of income: Subsistence, piecework, work-in-kind, wages and influence
She literally can't take a 40-hour a week job for even $25/hr because she has zero support/subsidizing from family/partner to keep her finances in the black.
But her skills aren't worth $25/hr. in Akron, and the people she is competing for work with in NYC ARE subsidized, so they CAN take $25/hr. She's in every slot on Wallerstein's list of income categories. (I'm actually going to commission a large stained glass window from her, to help her through the holiday season.) She literally can't take a 40-hour a week job for even $25/hr because she has zero support/subsidizing from family/partner to keep her finances in the black.
...she bloody well could in Akron, Ohio. But she doesn't want to be in Akron, and I don't blame her.
"Worth" is the wrong way to look at it. She could bag groceries in Akron for $17 an hour. Maybe she can't earn $25 an hour anywhere doing anything except New York and LA. Like I said, civilization concentrates. But if she's making stained glass for someone on the other coast, a proximity to New York isn't a factor in that aspect of her business at least.
I'm not sure if we agree or not. I don't feel like we are saying the same thing. I said That is pretty clear to me. Do you agree? Sorry to hear about your struggling friend, it sounds very stressful, and reminds me how fortunate I am to have reached a point in life where I don't have financial anxiety, thanks in part to support I've received from family and rent-sharing roommates.The financial support Q gets from roommates and family means her employer has to pay her more, not less, to keep her as an employee.