Used with kind permission of the author.
Authored By Katie Gatti Tassin, Money with Katie.com
On The Money with Katie Show this week, weâre discussing a flurry of scams designed to infiltrate hearts, minds, and walletsâfrom MLMs to prosperity gospel megachurches (and all of the delightful contradictions therein).
As we were developing the episode, I kept circling the concept of individualism: a cultural belief system (and, I suppose, a political system) that emphasizes autonomy, independence, and self-sufficiency. It generally pooh-poohs the idea of taking a holistic approach to universal needs that collectivist cultures celebrate. (âIndividual meritâ and âdeservingnessâ were big talking points in the schemes we cover in the episode.)
And while we could debate the ethical implications and capitalist merits for the next 48 hours until the episode drops and still not reach any definitive conclusions, what’s always struck me as fundamentally problematic isnât a moral issue, but a logical one: It doesnât scale.
Individualism operates under the fragile assumption that the system grades on absolute termsâthat if everyone worked hard enough, everyone could receive an A.
âIndividualism operates under the fragile assumption that the system grades on absolute termsâthat if everyone worked hard enough, everyone could receive an A. â
But our society grades on a bell curve, shuffling the most exceptional to the front of the class. If everyone became uniformly more exceptional, the curve would just shift to the rightâthe bar for âaverageâ simply rising.
(Look no further than the way post-secondary education went from something special that set you apart in the job market, to a prerequisite for being hired.)
Thereâs no iteration of individualism wherein everyone ends up better off, because its core functioning mechanism is competitionâand you canât have winners without losers!
This plays out in a rather obvious way in something like a multilevel marketing company, which is transparently-but-somehow-not-legally a pyramid scheme. Your success is contingent upon your ability to recruit a greater fool, so widespread success in a pyramid scheme is mathematically impossible.
Itâs less obvious in, say, a job market, whereâif you take one single company as a microcosmâthe hierarchical structure itself plays a definitive role in outcomes.
The CEO and mid-level manager may be equally competent, but only one person gets to be CEO. Thereâs a fixed number of âwinningâ spots, making the race to the top zero-sum. Someone has to be at the bottom of the pyramid, earning the entry-level wages and doing the work nobody else wants to do.
And while you could say the âloserâ in this scenario is still a winner because they have a job, the fact that there are far more people at the bottom than the top is the point: I remember when I started my career in an entry-level role at a Fortune 100 company and observed the path upward, it was clear how I would ascend to the next couple of levels (assistant manager, to associate manager, to manager, to senior manager, etc.), but then things got murky: I could see there were a lot more people on the bottom four levels than the top ones.
I guess Iâm going to have to battle it out with these other young women for the few spots that the old men currently hold, I thought to myself, doing some quick math that revealed the uncomfortable truth and wondering what happened to the careers of everyone else who didnât score one of the few top jobs.
The promise of career upward mobility, I realized, was a widely held corporate delusion that only came to pass for a select few. Some will work their way up. Most wonât.
Which got me thinking: Individualism is an absurd policy position
A good barometer for testing the scalability of something is asking, âIf everyone took this advice, what would happen?â
Similarly to the hierarchical corporate structure, most individual advice canât or doesnât scale well in practice, which makes it an awfully wonky policy position for things like childcare, healthcare, and other infrastructure that a functioning society needs to operate properly.
A popular, hyper-individualist line of defense for the American childcare status quo is, âIf you canât comfortably afford the average $16,000 per year per kid in daycare expenses, maybe you shouldnât have those kids.â Itâs a mighty strange position, considering roughly half of American households earn less than $70,000 per year before taxes and almost definitely couldnât âcomfortablyâ spend one-third of their take-home pay on daycare, no matter how low their other bills were.
If all of those people followed the advice to not have children, birth rates (and by extension, the United Statesâs economic system) would collapse in a few generations, because there wouldnât be enough replacement workers to keep things rolling. (Weâre setting aside the fact that âonly rich people should reproduceâ is textbook dystopian.) Birth rates are already on a dangerous decline, according to some economists, so doubling down on individual hustle in the childcare realm is an all-around bizarre approach. (Itâs worth noting that womenâs participation in the labor force and wide availability of contraceptives are some of the reasons given for low birth rates.)
Another relevant example: Iâve long pointed out the fact that financial independence and early retirement cannot exist at scale, because our economic system would cease functioning. If every young person in their thirties or forties achieved financial independence and quit working, the workforce would be limited to those under the age of 35, effectively removing roughly 66% of the current labor force, or the equivalent of about 44 million people.
For reference, approximately 4.2 million people left the workforce because of the Covid-19 pandemic (because they passed away, retired, or couldnât work for some other reason) and it created an incredibly tight labor market. Imagine that x10, and youâve got a country where âFI/REâ is prevalent.
Of course, thereâs a funny redundancy in the system: If 44 million working-age people retired en masse and ceased most discretionary spendingâŚcorporate profits would drop, the stock market would stutter to a halt, and the returns required to support early retirement would vanish, driving everyone back to work.
In the same vein, a popular suggestion for those who work for minimum wage is to âgo back to school and get a better job.â Fair enough for a handful of minimum wage workers, but the system might just break if all 1.6 million minimum wage workers applied that advice.
Itâs possible businesses would be forced to pay higher wages if there were suddenly no one willing to work for $7.25/hour anymore, but on a smaller scale in the post-pandemic world, weâre observing that scenario play out before our eyes amidst impassioned cries that ânobody wants to work anymore.â
These are eye-opening thought experiments that illustrate the point: A lot of good advice simply doesnât scale, and therein lie the limits of individual solutions for certain issues that impact everyone in more or less the same way.
Even our housing policy isnât exempt
Well-intentioned individual solutions stop working if everyone enacts them.
Thereâs even an interesting school of thought that suggests the housing marketâsomething traditionally believed to have intrinsic, indisputable valueâis a bit of a Ponzi scheme, as Jerusalem Demsas highlights in this piece for The Atlantic: âHomeownership works for some because it cannot work for all.ââ Jerusalem Demsas
âAt the core of American housing policy is a secret hiding in plain sight: Home ownership works for some because it cannot work for all. If we want to make housing affordable for everyone, then it needs to be cheap and widely available. And if we want that housing to act as a wealth-building vehicle, home values have to increase significantly over time. How do we ensure that housing is both appreciating in value for homeowners but cheap enough for all would-be homeowners to buy in? We canât.â (Emphasis mine.)
Itâs worth pointing out that homes in the US didnât begin appreciating beyond the inflation rate until about the 1970s. By the 1990s, it was a âfree marketâ heavily manipulated by government intervention: Everything from the 30-year fixed rate mortgage to the mortgage interest rate deduction to zoning restrictions and artificially constrained supply impacted the prices of homes.
When we started working on the episode, I had a pretty clear-cut idea of what the criteria were for a scam, not the least of which was a core lack of scalability
But the more my team and I unpacked the idea and âindividualismâ became a common throughline between the various schemes we uncovered, I found myself asking: Is everything a pyramid scheme?Â
Itâs hard to point to anything in a modern economy that isnât contingent upon a new class of suckers coming up, to whom you can offload your overvalued real estate or stocks before cashing in your chips and going on your merry way.
All the individual advice often touted as the solution to âwinningâ in modern life is built on the scaffolding of a flimsy contradiction, becauseâby definitionâit cannot work for everyone. The system prescribes that there must be losers, which is all well and good if the prize youâre vying for is a fancier car, a pair of designer shoes, or a lush corner office.
ââIndividualismâ became a common through-line between the various schemes we uncovered, [and] I found myself asking: Is everything a pyramid scheme?â
Itâs not, however, a legitimate answer to our collective, universal needs like quality childcare and housing.
The half-funny, half-sad thing is, these realizations alone arenât enough to render advice to individuals worthless, because the system of winners and losers is still the one we operate withinâbut when individual merit is a societyâs answer for creating the conditions necessary for it to continue thriving, reproducing, and growing, things begin to resemble an economic Mad Max. That doesnât bode well for anyoneâs future, whether youâre individually exceptional or not.