I don't understand why I'm more exploited. But I agree about the pointlessness of a suffering contest.
Because yu produce proportionately more surplus value. Say 1.00 an hour produces1.25 value. (25% exploitation).
Say100 wage per hour produces a total value of 150l A 50% rate of exploitation. The relatively rich person then is exploited at double the rate of the starving person.
I don't _know_, of course, either your or the walmart clerk's rate of exploitation: I just said it's quite possible, even probable. (I'm grossly oversimplifying of course.
But my point was primarily a _political_ poitn: My post contained a turn as it were on the word "exploitation," its first use being technical, its second appearance being "popular." That's what makes a focus on exploitation divisive. If you talk about exploitatin peole will take it in the popular senxe and that splits you off from the Walmart clerk. And both of you off from some really important technical person earning (say) $600 an hour.
The popular sense is the moreintuitive sense of the word, & even people who know better will 'feel' it that way.
Carrol