I think that the root of the confusion may be the contrast between an anthropologist's view of "worth" and an economist's view of "worth". He makes this contrast explicit in the article as well, but being an anthropologist, he tends to discount the economist's viewpoint.
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 $$$ an employer has available to it. $1M for Goldman Sachs or $300K for Google is peanuts; $30K for the neighborhood bookstore may break the bank. So someone could easily be paid 6 figures at the former simply to keep them off the market and prevent them from working for a competitor, even though most people would say that activity is far less socially beneficial than becoming a primary school teacher and educating dozens of children.
To an anthropologist, all human beings have the same worth, and so it doesn't make sense that the top-line revenues of your employer matter so much more than your bottom-line contributions to society. Someone who is doing productive things, whether they do so on behalf of a powerful organization or not, should be rewarded more than someone who is not doing productive things.
I think the author goes too far in suggesting a widespread realignment of society - I wouldn't really want to live in an anarcho-communist utopia either. But one of his central points was that the dominant discourse in American society is to assume that if people are paying for work, it must have value, and your comment is ample evidence of that.
To an economist, a transaction's worth is defined by the point at which the supply and demand curves intersect. The supply curve depends strongly on how much $$$ 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.