
Is everything an MLM - colinprince
https://annehelen.substack.com/p/is-everything-an-mlm
======
bluetomcat
Most of the economy in the so called "developed countries" is nowadays a zero-
sum game between winners and losers. Seen from a macro perspective, it
resembles a multi-agent system where independent agents compete to provide
inessential products and services in exchange for being able to afford basic
necessities like housing, food and child care. The finite resource that such
companies are fighting for is people's attention and time. Some win, others
lose, but the status quo is that we are sweating from work in order to live in
a world with smart refrigerators, automatic garage doors and pointless baby
toys. And if we had more spare time, why would we even think of that.

What we really need is a change in paradigm because market forces will mostly
solve only small "consumer" problems and cannot reorganise our society in a
more efficient way.

~~~
seibelj
I’m sorry that this is your world view, because it is deeply flawed and
focusing on such cynicism leads to depression.

Most of HN lives in a tech bubble where everyone is focused on building semi-
useless software like you describe. However the majority of society still does
“normal” things like construction, manufacturing, sales, etc. and some sort of
fundamental reorganizing of society on non-market principles doesn’t change
that someone needs to maintain our physical infrastructure and keep the lights
on.

The economy is not a zero-sum game. If I make more money there is not someone
else losing. The more jobs there are, the more needs fulfilled, the more
services provided the better it is for everyone as more money moves around.

It’s not on someone else to tell me what I should and should not want. If I
desire it and a company provides it for a price, it doesn’t matter that the
smart refrigerator is a waste in your vision. The market demands, and
entrepreneurs provide.

~~~
grawprog
Almost every job i've worked outside of tech is pretty much some non essential
service or product. Right now I turn mountains into countertops and fireplaces
using large, expensive machines so rich people can have stone inside their
homes. I provide nothing that is essential, yet every day customers spend tens
of thousands of dollars and my spends thousands so rich people can have nice
shiny stone inside their homes.

In order to get this stone, they literally dismantle mountains one block at a
time, slice them into slabs and ship them all over the world. Again, all so
rich people can have nice shiny stone in their kitchens.

~~~
sverige
Why aren't you arguing directly that we should all live in soviet-style
housing blocks? Concrete is good enough, right? Then we'd all be equal.

~~~
grawprog
I'm not saying they're wrong to have them. I'm pointing out spending $20,000
on some piece of stone for you to prepare your food on is fairly non-
essential.

Though again, they remove mountains for this, the shop produces a bunch of
toxic, fish killing dust and sediment every day that's slowly killing me and
my coworkers and destroying the planet.

But my main point was, the things I create every day are not essential. They
are luxury items. Many of the other jobs i've had were also along the same
line.

Not that they don't make people happy or improve their lives I suppose,(though
the people that got soapstone in their kitchen recently are in for a some
trouble the first time they drop something on it or spill something acidic on
it.) But, in the end, it's definitely not essential and detrimental to the
world as a whole in many ways.

~~~
sverige
I understand, but from that perspective, pretty much everything in "developed"
countries is non-essential, including personal computers (whether desktop,
laptop, smartphone, or tablet) and forums like this one to discuss such
things. Think of the toxic waste created by all those computers, and the
greenhouse gases created by shipping them all over the place! And to what end?

~~~
grawprog
Yeah you're right. I think that's the point the gp comment was making
originally. It's not just developed countries either. There are massive
industries supporting millions of people that are non-essential. The problem
is many of them actually do provide a large increase to quality of life. The
improvement granite counters make is questionable, things like computers,
phones, vehicles and other large scale damaging things, while not necessarily
essential, do bring a dramatic improvement to quality of life and
paradoxically enough allow people to make money providing.what is likely
another non-essential service or product.

It's always been like this though. In the end, there's no reason for humans to
have ever made most of the things we have over the millenia other than because
we can and did. Once we had food and shelter and all these things pretty much
taken care of, everythong else after was pretty much just for the fuck of it
and we've always been at odds with the world and destroyed and altered our
environments. The scale has just kept increasing to the point where there are
massive global industries devoted to this.

At the same time, humanity still follows our basic survival insticts. We still
have that inner subconcious mentality of scarcity when it comes to essentials.
So it ends up being treated the same way in our economy as luxury goods and
you end up in this situation where people are trading non-essential things for
essential things.

------
nostrademons
_Life_ is a pyramid scheme. Rather than figure out a way to exist in a steady-
state forever, our cells divide exponentially, accumulate genetic mutations
until they can't take it anymore, and then rather than fix themselves, we just
make new humans and let the old one die. Humanity in developed countries at
least has the kindness not to make more humans than we believe have a
reasonable chance of survival, but that restraint is not universal either
within humanity or within the animal kingdom. Most animals just spray & pray
and whatever happens to survive carries on the mantle of the next generation.

The universe is a pyramid scheme too - we know that thermodynamically, the
ending state is the eventual heat death of the universe, but until it happens
gravity creates this big positive feedback loop where smaller clouds of
hydrogen coalesce with bigger ones, which eventually start fusing, which
generates all the energy the universe will ever have.

We've grown to believe in steady-states and sustainable systems because until
recently, the pyramids have not been birthed and died within the span of a
human lifetime. Far enough down a pyramid's base and it looks like a steady-
state, at least until it collapses. But now that we can watch economic systems
get conceived, grow, IPO, and die all within a decade or two, we're waking up
to the fact that pyramid schemes are far more ubiquitous than previously
thought.

~~~
jaggederest
There's another big aspect to this: the orientation of the economy towards
growth.

When you start asking "What happens when the population and the economy are in
a steady state, where we don't expect things to increase at 2% forever", and
the answers are pretty grim.

Retirement systems, for example, need a certain ratio of productive workers
for each retiree, and I can't figure out any math that makes sense for the
next ~20 years.

~~~
AznHisoka
1 thing I never understood is this obsession towards jobs growth. Every month,
when this number is released, everyone wants this number to be better than the
last month.

Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will
eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet
everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down.

People are freaking crazy.

~~~
mhluongo
> Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will
> eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing.
> Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down.

Unless there's a labor shortage?

~~~
AznHisoka
True but the narrative is always about the possibility of a recession and
companies being afraid to invest in their businesses. Rarely do I see this
point being made.

------
plaidfuji
> everything

Article is just about CorePower Yoga and grad school.

~~~
hawski
It also contains this passage:

> When I first suggested that yoga teacher training was an MLM, someone
> rightly responded: “it feels like everything today is an MLM.” That’s what
> happens when an industry is fully enveloped by capitalism: When a hedge fund
> buys a yoga company — or when universities are figured as money-making
> businesses, with actual consultants hired to lead them.

That's the source for the title.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
So you’re saying it’s clickbait.

------
soniman
Any decent grad department will give the grad students a tuition waiver and
stipend so it's actually the opposite of a pyramid scheme. In a pyramid
scheme, you pay to join the pyramid. In academia, the pyramid pays you. I
spent two years in a grad department in Boston that paid me to hang out and
read books and occasionally grade papers. It probably wasn't the best life
decision but there wasn't any exploitation.

~~~
klipt
Is it really free given the labor they get from you? Say your labor could get
you $100k from a tech company but you're getting a $20k stipend + $20k fee
remission from a university to do coding instead, aren't they benefitting from
underpaying you by $60k?

~~~
dymk
The opportunity cost is offset by the student wanting to work in academia more
than the industry. I know several grad students who know full well they’d be
paid more at Google, but enjoy doing research at a lower salary far more.
Money isn’t the only value you get out of a job.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
I think all of the above is very specific to higher-education in the US. I'm a
PhD resarch student in a UK university and that's really not what I see from
where I stand. And keep in mind that universities here too are for-pay and the
tuition fees can be very high and the UK society has very much embraced free-
market capitalism. And UK universities these days will take on just anyone for
a PhD (see: me). But, really- Avon? I mean, come on.

Or perhaps it has to do with the field the author was in? I'm not sure what
that was, but in my case, nobody has ever asked me to do any sort of "lab
work" at all. I have been asked to help with invigilation and TA duties,
because I receive a stipend from the dept. of eng. as part of my funding, and
they "expect" you to do that sort of thing if you get funding from them, but I
do get paid for my trouble and even my advisor has to mark exam papers (from
courses he doesn't deliver himself) once in a while. Like, honestly, if this
is exploitation I don't think my university is doing it right.

~~~
tomrod
In the US I saw engineering labs using PhDs from abroad as almost slave labor.
A bit hyperbolic perhaps, but the students were not allowed to progress
without the advisor's say so, and the advisors would not allow them to top-
author papers they were basically sole contributing. On top of that, between
their own work and lab work, they were expected to put in 60 to 80 hours a
week.

The point is, the power dynamics were out of whack.

~~~
javajosh
_> advisors would not allow them to top-author papers they were basically sole
contributing_

As an aside, how is this possible, or legal? Can't a student (can't anyone)
submit a paper to a journal on their own? IIRC Einstein was a free-agent when
he submitted all those papers in 1905.

~~~
jhbadger
Modern science isn't a one-person affair. Few papers have single authorships
nowadays because science is done in teams rather than by lone geniuses (and
even in the case of Einstein it looks like his first wife, the mathematician
Mileva Marić, should probably have been given co-authorships on some of those
early papers). While some fields simply have authors listed in alphabetical
order, many have special meaning to the first and last authors -- the first
author is given to the person who supposedly contributed the most (which can
be contentious; typically a grad student or post-doc) and the last author is
given to the mentor of the first author.

------
mindfulplay
Reminds me of the Norm MacDonald joke: "When I was a child, they told me to
crush the cans, recycle and plant trees. It's for your own future.

Then I grew up and 'here I am', and they said, 'not you, it's for the future
generation'.

I know a pyramid scheme when I see one."

------
OldHand2018
> Any decent grad department will give the grad students a tuition waiver and
> stipend so it's actually the opposite of a pyramid scheme.

If you're interested, UChicago just released a report [1] on graduate
education that highlights large numbers of areas that need improvement. It is
unlikely that all of these problems are specific to them. The actual report is
available [2] and is about 100 pages with an additional 200 pages of
appendixes that contain a LOT of data.

[1] [https://csl.uchicago.edu/announcement/daniel-diermeier-
repor...](https://csl.uchicago.edu/announcement/daniel-diermeier-report-
committee-graduate-education) [2]
[https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/r...](https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/Committee%20on%20Graduate%20Education%20Report.pdf)

------
aj7
“The fault with thinking of academia as a pyramid scheme is that there’s no
one at the top — just the increasingly ambivalent structure, the ever-
reproducing base. You could say administration profits, or football coaches
profit. But it increasingly feels like a system in which no one wins: not the
students, not their parents, not the graduate students, not professors facing
increased belt-tightening, axing of departments, and continual fights for
whatever meager resources remain.” This is a very naive statement from a
dedicated academic who has written an otherwise great, and deserves-to-be-read
article. Who benefits? Administrators and tenured professors, all effectively
with lifetime positions, large guaranteed pensions. To duplicate the expected
cashflows, here, for a mid-careered 50-year-old, requires capital of ca. $5M.
THAT’s who benefits.

------
nkingsy
Life itself is a MLM scheme. When my daughter was born, our parents all
displayed an almost indescribable satisfaction. Biological MLM is called
“fitness”.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_\(biology\))

------
foxhop
My goal is to extract as much money as I can out of the tech industry, without
compromising on my values. While I'm doing that I'm trying to build up a small
food forest which will help me avoid the pyramid altogether.

My only hope for humanity is for at least 30% of the population to do the
same, but I'm not holding my breath.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
I don’t understand. You want 30% of the population of earth to farm their own
food? Does economy of scale not apply to food production?

~~~
foxhop
Yes I want at least 30% of the population on Earth to farm their own food.

I want the food system to become localized which will prevent a crisis which
makes people starve and stops "food islands" where people in certain locations
only have access to junk food and fast food.

~~~
badpun
> "food islands" where people in certain locations only have access to junk
> food and fast food.

Surely they also have access to the food that they can buy at the store and
cook themselves?

~~~
helen___keller
I think OP meant "food desert". Food deserts are typically defined by not
having access to such a store or that the only available ones are overpriced

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert)

------
ryanmarsh
I too was asked to be a teacher after maybe a couple months of classes at Core
Power. Keep in mind there were a great many ordinary poses I could not do
properly because of my back injuries (one of the reasons I was going in the
first place). I was flattered that someone noticed my dedication. Now I feel
like a fool.

------
hawski
> just the increasingly ambivalent structure, the ever-reproducing base

This reminds me of the city from Blame! manga. Ever-growing megastructure
without any thought. Without any external control, just expanding. Something
that began on Earth and now is becoming a Dyson sphere.

Even though there are specific people that profit from current economy, will
they profit forever if things will proceed as they are? Will they remain on
top when the environment will crumble around us? It certainly is a different
scale, so on small scale they will win, but in the long run no-one wins.

------
beardedwizard
While there is more going on, the subtle comment about hustle culture
resonates with me. Cheap labor exploitation called "hustling", and currently
everyone seems to want to have a hustle. It's because we are getting screwed
at our day jobs, folks, and those same employers are exploiting you again when
you leave and start your hustle.

~~~
johnisgood
What does exploitation mean exactly in this context? What does it mean to be
exploited by an employer?

~~~
soVeryTired
I guess any sort of significant power imbalance.

Does your team generate good revenue for the company but you still get paid
peanuts? Does your work ask for overtime but fail to allow you to take time
off when you need it? Do they ask for commitment to the job, while being
prepared to terminate you at a moment's notice when time gets tough?

~~~
johnisgood
Yeah, but you get into that contract _voluntarily_ , so you sort of know what
you signed up for, and regardless, you have the option to quit. This is why I
do not understand the complaints.

~~~
rleigh
No, it's not entirely voluntary. It's a necessity to live. I might be able to
pick and choose between several employers, but ultimately I'm going to have to
choose _one_ of them. There's a power imbalance between employee and employer,
and that will translate into a negotiating disadvantage; the future employee
is at a disadvantage here.

~~~
johnisgood
> No, it's not entirely voluntary.

In this case, it is not entirely voluntary for the employers either as they
need employees for their business to function.

> but ultimately I'm going to have to choose one of them

No, you can become your own employer, for example.

> There's a power imbalance between employee and employer, and that will
> translate into a negotiating disadvantage

It depends on the state of the market. Right now, the job market is supposedly
very good for programmers (employees).

Employers are offering to trade their money in exchange for other people doing
some task they want done. If you do not think it is fair trade, then do not do
it. You are allowed to grow your own food, or pick berries.

~~~
soVeryTired
> Employers are offering to trade their money in exchange for other people
> doing some task they want done. If you do not think it is fair trade, then
> do not do it. You are allowed to grow your own food, or pick berries.

You're also free to die in the gutter, don't forget that one.

~~~
johnisgood
I am not sure what you are trying to say. I brought up perfectly reasonable
alternatives.

Regardless, both parties are made better off by the trade. Employers are the
ones helping those unfortunate people avoid the thing that is even worse than
having a job, such as: suffering and dying in the gutter. :)

------
Unsimplified
Within the monetary market model, the fundamental factors are money supply and
money flow. To solve poverty and ensure that everyone has basic necessities
satisfied, either buy from the poor or donate to them. These are the only
civil options.

------
qwerty456127
> The yoga teacher recruitment model is strikingly similar to an MLM (Multi
> Level Marketing scheme; think Avon and Amway

Whatever a business model there is, there is a difference: yoga is a real
thing that actually improves your health, beauty and psyche you actually get
with you wherever you go while the most of the other MLM projects are
consumerist bullshit.

------
_bxg1
Capitalism is broken. Or rather, it breaks things.

------
nestorD
TLDR: A reflexion on wether graduate school is a form of pyramid scheme.

~~~
magpi3
Academia not graduate school.

------
woah
The argument in this article is that everything is a pyramid scheme, if by
“everything” you mean postgrad humanities academia.

Also rails against the evils of capitalism, using examples from a system
funded by government grants and loans, and peopled by vehement anti-
capitalists.

------
caprese
It is an effective strategy, my observation is that way more energy is
expended in debating the term MLM by assuming it is a pejorative term and the
potential legal ramifications

Without a government stance on any particular viral campaign I typically try
to avoid MLMs as I find them unattractive

With government stance and intervention I notice that the only result is for
people to understand exactly how to operate an MLM to avoid government
intervention

Most ideas simply arent self sustaining without the productivity of new
participants getting diminishing returns from that idea

Adding a pejorative label to that reality is arbitrary

~~~
anmorgan
From my internet researching a while ago the main difference, and why MLMs are
legal, is that an MLM sells a product, whereas a pyramid scheme sells people.
That is, you can make money solely by acquiring more people who pay to be
apart of it, in a pyramid scheme.

I'm still not sure how I feel about MLMs. If it's actually a good product
maybe it's not a bad thing, but when it is not, that's where it seems to get
sketchy.

~~~
ff317
Yes, but many/most nominal MLMs are effectively pyramid schemes in disguise.
New entrants at the bottom rungs of the network are typically sold a "starter
kit" by whomever one rung up the network recruited them. The starter kit is
going to be some marketing materials and an initial inventory of product to
sell. The marketing materials convince them they're getting a great deal on
the wholesale value of the product and will make their money back in no time
just by selling off the starter products (and then order/sell more and keep
making more!), but the truth turns out to be that the upstream is banking on
turning a mild profit selling the starter kit to the new member and doesn't
care whether individuals ever buy the products, and the actual product doesn't
sell very well to individuals because it's not a very good product. Then the
only realistic way to make back the starter kit money is to sell more starter
kits to another layer of idiots who think they'll be able to sell the
worthless product, ad infinitum. In such a scheme there is a "product", but
the vast majority of the product that's ever manufactured just changes hands
through the starter-kit system between various levels of salespersons as a
form of pyramid currency and almost no consumers end up buying it.

