Network Marketing and Subsidiarity

As I embark on this brave network marketing journey, I encounter repeated arguments against it but very few arguments in favor of it. I want to write some of my thoughts on these issues, both arguments in favor of network marketing and responses to some common arguments.

My first argument in favor of network marketing is that it meets the principle of subsidiarity as I understand it. The bulk of profits goes to the people who do the bulk of the work, people at the lowest level. There is a tremendous culture of support of those at the lowest level since each person up the chain depends upon the success of the newbies. There is a small contingent of people "at the top" and they can be a problem if the compensation package is not structured properly, just like Enron or Fannie Mae. I particularly appreciate the minimal overhead, such as the lack of a gigantic marketing group that generates "buzz" by flooding the media with pictures of scantily-clad women and/or celebrities getting paid millions of dollars to pretend they use the product in question. Paid endorsements just give more money to rich people. I much prefer an organization that lets normal people work for a normal profit.