Unless there is some sort of bone oddity in the joint, the wings are not locked in place. The bird must still self-support via muscles.
Try it. The relatively bird-like way is like a gymnast on a pair of rings, arms horizontal. Doing things upside-down, consider standing with outreached arms holding heavy objects. It'd be half your body weight at the arm midpoints, which due to leverage is roughly like a quarter of body weight in each hand.
Even without any flapping, that is going to consume lots of energy.
This 'relative bird-like way' makes no sense at all. Humans are not birds. They are not even related. They are completely different organisms.
Humans have had zero evolutionary pressure for minimizing energy expenditure while in hovering flight.
Birds had more than 150 million years to optimize their benefits for survival and reproduction [1,2]. They even survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event [3] where the evolutionary pressure of food scarcity was at an extreme.
The elbow and 'finger' joints are fully extended, so are locked and don't require energy to support. The pectoral muscles are supporting the weight of the bird, but they are very much stronger proportionally than ours.
But it's an interesting question. According to a couple of papers I found online [1][2], when soaring birds are soaring their energy use is not much higher than when sitting. Soaring is very efficient.
The gymnast example is fighting against gravity with absolutely no external factor other than personal strength, but the warm air / wind resistance pushing against the wings that allows the condor to fly for so long without flapping is contributing immensely to their ability to hold the wings in place.
A few of the other comments have covered good reasons why this is a poor analogy. One thing to remember: wing muscles are the most well-developed muscles on birds, while human arms are extremely weak compared to our legs.
A better analogy would be that flapping-wing flight is to soaring how running is to standing (maybe on a moving platform to account for turbulence, etc.).
I have no idea about birds, but I read that horses and other animals can sort-of lock their feet in place and require minimal effort to stay in place -- perhaps birds have such mechanisms as well and it takes very little effort to just glide -- otherwise, they would not do it.
The physics are different. For a gymnast the support is at the hands, so the force felt by the gymnast is a product of his weight and the distance between his shoulders and hand palms. For a bird I'm guessing that air applies support to the body and wings, so forces are more evenly distributed throughout its length.
Unless there is some sort of bone oddity in the joint, the wings are not locked in place. The bird must still self-support via muscles.
Try it. The relatively bird-like way is like a gymnast on a pair of rings, arms horizontal. Doing things upside-down, consider standing with outreached arms holding heavy objects. It'd be half your body weight at the arm midpoints, which due to leverage is roughly like a quarter of body weight in each hand.
Even without any flapping, that is going to consume lots of energy.