[Guyute]

The point of the business is to get people to buy training materials at 400% markup, and then get those people to initiate others into the cult...You're missing part of the point here... nobody is saying that MLMs don't sell anything, or even that they don't sell a lot. The point is that MLMs make their money by A) Selling "starter kits" to suckers, and B) Aforementioned suckers alienating their friends and family by strenuously and unapologetically peddling WAY overpriced stuff to them...

I am not missing any point. I still cannot understand how you think someone can create long-term residual income by peddling kits? The idea as you mentioned is a conundrum. You cannot create residual income with a one-time purchase. Pointe finale. The object of most MLM's is to create long-term residual income through personal sales, consumption, and development of a downline sales force who sell and also consume their own products. Only a complete retard would try to create long-term walk-away business by selling an intro kit, THEN moving on to the next kill, because the intro kit is actually designed to showcase a small number of representative products, creating further interest. So instead of showing someone how to buy, from catalogs and online, thousands of items which can interest many people from many walks of life, for the rest of their life, even if they choose not to become a distributor, Mr. Kit-Peddlar buys kits that contain literature, guides and sample packs, the sale of which force him to be present at EVERY TRANSACTION. This "sell kits to get rich" idea or "get-them-in-to-sell-them-my-training aids" approach is pretty naive. Come on Pastrami (and Mr Noodle's reference to training materials), only a masochist would accept that as a future. The whole idea is to creat walk-away income, not "have-to-be-there-even-more-than-before" income. The B part of the statement is also not true, because the vast majority of people end up with very little business being generated by their family.

Your "parallel" isn't. The owner of a body shop makes more money than his/her workers because he/she made the initial investment, and took the risk that came with it. My manager makes more money than me....

I would like to see the number of managers who make less than their subordinates. I now do not have a migraine; I can recognize BS when I see it. This may be true in a very, very limited basis. Realistically, show me how many people would assume more responsibility for less money? Come on. I am 35, not 12. I was trying to illustrate a direct front-line employee/owner-or-CEO relationship as it would exist in a situation relating to salary/compensation, in response to others insinuating that the guys at the top of MLM's always reap what others sow. This is not always true, whereas in a "traditional" company it is almost entirely the rule.

BTW- Stating that your manager can increase productivity more than you can through effective management of several subordinates, thus increasing his value- explain to me how this differs from an upline/downline relationship in an MLM?

Some managers are slimy bastards who manipulate people for their own gain, but they are the exception, and the system tries to squeeze them out. But MLMs encourage that sort of behavior. Will an MLM replace a financially successful individual if he/she isn't very supportive of their "downline?"

There you go again- What is so unethical about the idea? As others have said, it is the people that get involved that proceed unethically. You get that in EVERY business sector, not just MLM's so let's stop that BS, too. Yeah, there are probably dozens of other companies building MLM's that are shady, but not all. But not all people in an MLM end up screwing people. To villify MLM's while companies like Enron exist is so cynical it defies description. Again, I can't speak for most MLM's. If any given MLM encourages this, I would be the first to say "throw them to the wolves". However, the facts remain that almost every company in existence has employees who manipulate others for their own gain, so to insinuate that all MLM's have cornered the market on this is inflammatory, baseless, and wrong. Will a person be replaced if they are not supportive of their downline? Who's to say? That depends on the company. But who would continue to perform under a twit like that? Some would if they have support further up the line. Unfortunately MLM's are a microcosm of life, just like any other business model, so you get the slimeballs, just like any other business.