> What makes the value of the hairdresser or the clerk or any other
> number of jobs so easy to devalue then?
Sorry, I wasn't devaluing those professions at all, simply using them
to place myself along a continuum. The difference is that there is a
clear and open range of costs in some of those professions, but they
are also open to the perception of value. I chose to use the example
of a creative director in an ad agency because it is also one of the
most commercial roles in terms of selling 'creativity'.
> Is it because they don't attach a worth to their life, or because
> others so quickly do?
That would be a very British way of looking at things (I have less
experience of the USA - so maybe that too), I think, in which jobs
and professions are bound up so deeply with class structures. As you
say, Sean has covered this ground (much better) already in this
thread, but it's a cycle where some professions are seen to have less
value and so those working in them often see them (and themselves) as
being temporary. I find it very different in Germany where it is
perfectly accepted and respectable (and better paid) to be a waiter/
waitress for one's entire working life, for example.
> All of the above given examples of the economic spectrum offer no
> analyses of what those archetypal positions are WORTH... only what
> they can get. Not what they contribute to anything meaningful, but
> what the contribute to the dominant political economy - how they
> help those with privilege keep it.
> i value Sean's statements on cultural value and class...
Yes, true, but I believe Sarah's original question was about value in
monetary terms as much as cultural value. In fact it seems to me it
was about how to convert cultural value created into remuneration. I
can't eat cultural value, nor can I live under its roof.