icerat
Philosopher
No it's not, it's $2400 net income - median - and 43% of the sample spent less than 4hrs/wk on the business.
Hmmm ... that works out about $11.53/hr for 4hrs/wk. So much for McDonald's being a better option .....
No it's not, it's $2400 net income - median - and 43% of the sample spent less than 4hrs/wk on the business.
Hmmm ... that works out about $11.53/hr for 4hrs/wk. So much for McDonald's being a better option .....
No it's not, it's $2400 net income - median - and 43% of the sample spent less than 4hrs/wk on the business.
Hmmm ... that works out about $11.53/hr for 4hrs/wk. So much for McDonald's being a better option .....
Sorry but the "Direct Selling by the Numbers - Calendar Year 2007" article only tells you the sales made not profit. If you don't know if the income is net or gross it doesn't tell you anything useful. Making $2,500 gross is very different from making $2,500 net and yet that key piece of information is missing.
In fact if you look at MLMs that key piece of information is always missing.
Unless you have proof that the income is net not gross, Icerat, you are like the MLM industry in general are just blowing smoke.
"Multi-Level Marketing: A form of Pyramid Scheme, not necessarily fraudulent..." (2005) Encyclopedia of white-collar & corporate crime, Volume 2 pg 880 by SAGE Publications one of the largest publisher of journals in the world (520 of them).
The more you protest the more I will keep finding and presenting these publications.
Last edited:
icerat
Philosopher
Sorry but the "Direct Selling by the Numbers - Calendar Year 2007" article only tells you the sales made not profit. If you don't know if the income is net or gross it doesn't tell you anything useful. Making $2,500 gross is very different from making $2,500 net and yet that key piece of information is missing.
The $2400 figure comes from various news reports and the DSA blog, based I believe on the 2008 National Sales Force Survey. I've emailed the DSA for clarification, but normally when one says income in this context it's net income. It's most certainly not sales volume, which is what I was challenging.
Yet, surprise surprise, you have no problem at all with someone claiming income in this context is the same thing as sales volume.
Last edited:
icerat
Philosopher
Ok, my apologies, after further searching the $2400 is indeed gross income - but that's still not remotely the same as sales volume.
With regards profit, the question remaining is to how much expenses there are in less than 4hr works per week. I'd note we don't know the expenses involved in getting to work at McDonald's either .... and they can't claim them as tax deductions
With regards profit, the question remaining is to how much expenses there are in less than 4hr works per week. I'd note we don't know the expenses involved in getting to work at McDonald's either .... and they can't claim them as tax deductions
Last edited:
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,585
Well apparently he's ignoring this so I think your safe to assume it's the same guy unless he explicitly denies it here.
Basically Icerat is the most prolific MLM defender in history. This is actually somewhat impressive to me actually (in a scary way
icerat
Philosopher
It's actually a ban-able offence on wikipedia to "out" someone, even on another website, however yes, insider201283 is me. I started my pro-amway activism on an anti-amway website as "insider", the wiki account followed that, as did others where I joined primarily as an MLM advocate. I stopped using "insider" as too many people assumed it meant I was an Amway employee and started using "ibofightback".
I use "icerat" on various sites which ostensibly have nothing to do with MLM, including this one, and which I join for reasons other than MLM. Sadly the need to fight ridiculous myths sprang up on this site too
I'd suggest there's plenty of more prolific "MLM defenders" than I, Len Clements, Rod Cook, and Joe Rubino are three that come to mind, all active online and having published books. Then you have professional, independent, academics like Prof Charles King and Prof Dominque Xardel, and business historians like Wilbur Cross and Jim Robinson, all of whom have written several pro-MLM books, as well as journalists like Richard Poe, who has also written several pro-MLM books and numerous articles - to name just a few.
I'd suggest anyone who has written a few books on the topic is somewhat more "prolific" a defender than I am!
I use "icerat" on various sites which ostensibly have nothing to do with MLM, including this one, and which I join for reasons other than MLM. Sadly the need to fight ridiculous myths sprang up on this site too
I'd suggest there's plenty of more prolific "MLM defenders" than I, Len Clements, Rod Cook, and Joe Rubino are three that come to mind, all active online and having published books. Then you have professional, independent, academics like Prof Charles King and Prof Dominque Xardel, and business historians like Wilbur Cross and Jim Robinson, all of whom have written several pro-MLM books, as well as journalists like Richard Poe, who has also written several pro-MLM books and numerous articles - to name just a few.
I'd suggest anyone who has written a few books on the topic is somewhat more "prolific" a defender than I am!
Ok, my apologies, after further searching the $2400 is indeed gross income - but that's still not remotely the same as sales volume.
With regards profit, the question remaining is to how much expenses there are in less than 4hr works per week. I'd note we don't know the expenses involved in getting to work at McDonald's either .... and they can't claim them as tax deductions
This is a really silly comparison. Taxes are taken out of a McDonald's paycheck and other than standard vehicle maintenance what other expenses are involved?
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,585
I certainly wouldn't have said anything if you hadn't confirmed it in earlier threads.
I use "icerat" on various sites which ostensibly have nothing to do with MLM, including this one, and which I join for reasons other than MLM. Sadly the need to fight ridiculous myths sprang up on this site too
Which ridiculous myths?
I misspoke. Most prolific AMWAY defender.
icerat
Philosopher
I doubt all McDonald's workers walk to work. Even if you're driving and not taking public transport there are parking and fuel expenses etc.
My point is that some people yell "expenses!!!" when talking about MLM income, but ignore expenses with other forms of income. Heck, if you want to *own* a McDonald's I believe you have to work free in an existing McDonalds for a year, plus of course the 6 or 7 figure financing to purchase.
Either way, even with expenses, 4hrs a week at MLM would appear to be a significantly better option for many people than a job at McDonald's.
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,585
I think it's funny how we are comparing this to McDonalds and your MLM "would appear to be significantly better". <chortle> It's in the same ballpark anyway
Please don't compare it to a real job that someone who is skilled might be able to do though. It gets slaughtered badly
icerat
Philosopher
I think it's funny how we are comparing this to McDonalds and your MLM "would appear to be significantly better". <chortle> It's in the same ballpark anyway
More straw men and red herrings. We weren't even talking about "my MLM".
Please don't compare it to a real job that someone who is skilled might be able to do though. It gets slaughtered badly
I'm not the one who brings up the "better off at McDonald's" argument.
I'm no fan of MonaVie's product or compensation plan, and as you know I think "hourly rate" is a misleading statistic for evaluating building any business, but their income disclosure statement is quite interesting - even at the relatively modest "Bronze Executive" level, the "hourly rate" exceeds $50/hr. Take it to "Black Diamond Executive" and you're well over $1000/hr.
Kevin R Brown
Student
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31
...So, wait: you believe that marketing magically creates new customers - that is, materializes new human beings - right out of the void?
How... interesting?
Unless the McDonald's is in a unusually place parking is free so that is hardly a "standard" expense. As for fuel some MLMs have you going from place to place as of their methodology (DS-max for example) so you use more fuel than if you go to a fixed location.
If you think that is interesting you should really read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 as the comments by some of the MLM supporters must be read to be believed.
Also as pointed out there the Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology (which the Sandbek's article originally appeared in) is "a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner." So again, contrary to what Icerat claimed Sandbek's paper was academic.
Also the one question no MLM supported wanted to touch is why do scholarly review boards of business, anthropology, law, and psychology publications all feel that Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and even Vandruff are reliable to use as source material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1 was even more insane.
Last edited:
icerat
Philosopher
creating new customers = materializing new human beings??!?!?!?!?
Kevin, for your sake I'm going to hope you're just trolling .....
icerat
Philosopher
I never claimed Sandbek's paper was not "academic", you're again just making stuff up, as usual.
Last edited:
icerat
Philosopher
Yes, my apologies, you are correct, I did say that. I should have checked first, I was confusing with the Cruz paper, which is "academic".
I stand by my assertion though - the Sandbek article is not an academic paper, which is clear to anybody who cares to read it. As the "editor's note" at the beginning of the document states, it is "first in a series of articles on critical thinking in Sport Psychology". It does not appear to have been published anywhere but as a word document on a website, certainly not in any peer-reviewed journals. Even in respected journals, similar types of articles are not "academic papers"
More to the point - even if it had been published in JAMA it does not support your claim for academic references supporting a "99% failure rate". As much as you keep trying to distract, that point remains. A paper in an unrelated field mentioning the non-reliable opinion of the likes of Taylor or Fitzpatick does not change it from being non-reliable opinion.
Show me an academic paper that presents evidence for a 99% failure rate.
You can't do it, they don't exist. Constant screeching I'm a liar for saying so doesn't change the fact this is true.
The Cruz paper was demonstrated to be peer reviewed and therefor academic as well both here and at wikipedia.
Again Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology is "a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner" so your delusions don't matter.
Talk:Multi-level marketing/Archive 2 goes over those articles so there is no need to rehash them here.
Furthermore the following clearly denote MLMs as nothing more than legalized pyramid schemes:
Carroll, Robert Todd (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 235–36. ISBN 0471272426. (this is the BOOK not the web sites)
Coenen, Tracy (2009). Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide. Wiley. pp. 168. ISBN 0470387963.
Salinger (Editor), Lawrence M. (2005). Encyclopedia of White-Collar & Corporate Crime. Volume 2. Sage Publishing. pp. 880. ISBN 0761930043.
Face it the realible sources and peer reviewed publications are against you. This is reality, deal with it.
Last edited: