I worked fast-food (ice cream) before finishing college, but since then I've always been an office worker. I'm sympathetic with the fast-food worker, and I do think her/his situation is probably much worse than the situation for an office worker GENERALLY SPEAKING. But I've also had some office jobs that were constantly demanding, requiring much more time and effort than would ever be humanly possible for a single work day; and, because those office jobs were SALARIED, there was literally zero extra compen sation when extra work was expected.

So, in the choice between hourly-wage type jobs, and office-work type jobs, presuming that there actually can be a dichotomy made and assuming all hourly are non-office and all office are non-hourly salaried (a very broad, unfair assumption; but, just assuming it for the purposes of argument), I think each side has its disadvantages. Pick your poison.

I think one of the great "assets" that higher-tier office workers have, is the skill of foisting work off onto other people, even when that work may actually be their own responsibility. This is, basically, how to get promoted in corporate America -- make sure the problems are someone else's fault. In non-office jobs, it's generally much harder to foist your own work off on someone else: usually a guy can't claim that he changed the tire or painted the wall, unless he was actually the human being whose hands did the work. Whereas in office jobs, there's much more push-it-around possibility: a guy who is associated with a forty-page document because he did some of the spreadsheet analysis can either say (if it sucks) "well, I didn't do very much of it" or (if the boss loves it) "I did every bit of it" and either of those claims will have equal plausibility.

TLDR -- although I've experienced some office jobs with great time pressure, nevertheless generally fast-food is worse than office.