This Was a Bad Bad Financial Decision (And Eggs Should Be Cheaper)
03/24/25 The Monday Blueprint: What wage suppression, monopsony power, and market concentration really look like. And yes, egg prices still suck.
The Debt Lie: What They Never Told You About Money
This is Part Two of a three-part series, The Debt Lie: What They Never Told You About Money. In Part One, I unpacked how following the no-debt gospel of Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman left me broke, stuck, and terrified of financial risk. I showed how doing everything “the right way” still led to collapse. In this second installment, I explore the only two levers we actually have when it comes to money: spend less or earn more. Spoiler alert—frugality has a floor, and stability is often an illusion. In Part Three, I’ll break down why debt isn’t just okay—it’s often necessary, and how learning to use it can be the most powerful move you make.
This past summer I did something I probably should not have done for my wallet’s sake. My oldest daughter earned an internship at The American Ballet Theater Company at the Lincoln Center in New York City. One of the questions on the application was: do you currently have NYC housing? She immediately marked yes, even though she did not. I mean, she didn’t really think she’d get the position. But as her father, I know she’s brilliant and wasn’t surprised when they called her for an interview. I don’t know exactly what she did there, but I do know she was at the premiere of the Wolverine movie and told Hillary Clinton where the bathroom was. She saw Angelina Jolie in real life. Except, you know, from a distance.
New York City short-term rent, by the way, is explosively expensive. The cheapest we found was an AirBnB room with shared bathroom and kitchen access for $1500 a month for four months which is six thousand dollars, and I had just quit my teaching job that May with one commission check to get us through the summer. My wife and I already pay $2000/month which meant even with our kid paying for a portion of her NYC rent, we were still eight thousand dollars short.
The maths did not math. This was a bad bad financial decision.
Our solution was to withdraw cash from our 403(b). Which if you aren’t familiar with, a 403(b) is just the public sector’s version of the 401k. Not really an ideal situation because we’ll be paying again for this move in a few weeks when taxes are due. However, one of my new firm beliefs is that when an opportunity comes along, say yes even if you are not prepared—especially if you’re not prepared—and figure it out as you go. Do what it takes to make the thing happen.
In classic econ 101, the marginal productivity theory of income distribution says you always get paid in proportion to the value of what you produce. So when your productivity goes up (you produce more or higher-value stuff), your wages go up too—that is, if markets are competitive and functioning properly.
So back when I was stacking lumber at Hoge’s and promoted to running the computerized saw—the saw that made ten men’s worth of cuts—I didn’t see a dime more in pay. Instead, they shut me down. And, the same in academia stuck in union-controlled pay slots—except for the company shutting me down, I shut myself down because no matter how much more productive I was in that W-2 position, the marginal productivity theory wasn’t holding true. In both cases, the lumber company and the Community College System of New Hampshire, markets were not functioning properly.
It’s interesting to me that in both jobs I had the illusion of controlling my own financial destiny, and yet I had no control at all. Somebody else would always be in control of my paycheck, and it didn’t matter how productive I was, how efficient I was, that someone else was only going to pay me what they wanted to pay me—and not pay me what I was actually worth. This is monopsony power working hand in hand with employer discretion.
In a monopsony, you have one dominant employer or buyer of labor. So for example, the CCSNH may have seven different colleges underneath its umbrella, but because all seven colleges have been gathered underneath a single umbrella, you end up with only one employer. This limits options for employment in a given field or region. And because you are limited to the number of jobs available, the employer can suppress wages because workers have nowhere else to go. Even outside formal monopsony, employers often have asymmetric power to set wages below true value. This wage-setting power, or employer discretion, is especially true in W-2 jobs, where you’re not negotiating per task but locked into pay bands or contracts (hello, union slots).
Also, most workers don’t actually know their marginal productivity—or what others in similar roles are getting paid. Employers use that lack of transparency to their advantage. So you can be worth 10x the output, but if you don’t know you’re that productive, and they don’t have to admit that you’re that productive, then they just pocket the difference.
Switching costs kept me in my adjunct position far longer than I should’ve stayed. Geographic immobility, a lack of available jobs, and other barriers made it nearly impossible to move freely toward higher-paying opportunities.
Quitting Hoge Lumber had been easy. But at CCSNH, I was locked into three-month teaching contracts with severe financial penalties if I left mid-semester. That meant even the timing of a job search was constrained—if a better opportunity came along mid-term, I’d either have to pay a hefty fine for breaking my contract or ask the new employer to wait until the semester ended.
Productivity never equals pay when power is unbalanced. And you will never make more money in your w-2 job than what someone else decides to give you.
Year over year though, I saw my real estate income go up. So at what point when you are working two jobs and one is basically freelance with zero guarantees (that’s real estate), do you quit your stable W-2 and move the freelance side-hustle into full time?
There is no spreadsheet that tells you when to jump, but you quit when you realize the illusion of stability is more dangerous than the risk of reinvention.
In May of 2024, I had a lot of real estate leads, but no clients, and not real estate transactions at all, but looked at my bank account and saw that one single commission check that would carry me through the summer, and BAM I was done teaching. But then also my daughter said, “Hey, New York.”
And so, there are really only two ways to make more money: 1) spend less, and 2) earn more. That’s it. The only two levers you’ve got. No secret third option. And in my case, I was already spending as little as humanly possible. There was nothing left to cut. I wasn’t sure how we were going to continue to eat.
Enter DoorDash.
DoorDash made sense.
At least, it seemed to.
I’d delivered pizzas back in the day—Domino’s, Papa John’s—and at my peak, I only worked four days a week and still made great money. I was the guy who could take the order, make the pizza, box it, and deliver it. Fast, sharp, cash-focused. So when I needed money again, and
It wasn’t going to be permanent. Just a bridge. Something to get us through while my daughter was in NYC and we were paying double rent. But DoorDash was a grind. At most, I made enough to cover groceries for the next day. It was constant deadheading, wasting gas on empty miles between pickups, wearing down my car, always being just a little farther away from my family than I wanted.
And ten miles one way to deliver some dude a single iced coffee? Just make it at home, man. Out of every delivery I made, only one made sense to me: I brought lunch to a blind woman. When later made me think during my own post-op ankle recovery, when I was totally off my feet, barely mobile, I started leaning into DoorDash from the other side and ordering my own lunches. And one day—this is true—I spent $30 on a single Subway sandwich.
That’s what it cost. One single click with no through-thought, and poof instant sandwich that money was gone.
Back in October 2024, I interviewed Alex Saeteurni, owner of Thai Taste, for my Wicked Moxie series. I didn’t include it in the final piece, but off the record, he told me flat-out: his restaurant probably wouldn’t survive without DoorDash.
And yet, it’s killing his margins.
As a restaurant owner, you pay a monthly fee just to be on the platform. Then you give DoorDash a cut from every order’s gross total. That means the more meals you sell through DoorDash, the more you lose in profit.
Kristen French, owner of Gallivant Global Eatery, had a different complaint. She told me that when you rely on third-party delivery services like DoorDash, you lose control over food presentation and quality. Your name’s on the line, but you have no idea how the food is going to arrive. And when it shows up cold, smashed, or sideways in a passenger seat, it’s your business that gets the bad Yelp review—not DoorDash.
Because DoorDash doesn’t train its drivers. Not really. There’s no customer service orientation, no hospitality ethic—just an app, a car, and a rush.
And now? DoorDash has partnered with Klarna to let customers “buy now, pay later” for their food.
You can’t afford dinner? No problem—just finance your fries. Take out a no-interest loan for those chicken nuggets. Align your payment schedule with your next . All of this, of course, is desperation tech marketed as convenience, and the next logical next step in an economy that keeps squeezing people—workers, customers, small businesses alike—until they’re not sure if they’re spending money… or being spent.
Because “no interest” doesn’t mean free. Klarna made nearly $3 billion in revenue last year. Their business thrives on late fees, merchant cuts, and the quiet little interest rates attached to longer-term plans. They charge restaurants to be on the platform. They charge you if you miss a payment. They sell your spending habits and advertise right back to you.
Now combine that with DoorDash, a company that burns out drivers, exploits restaurants, and erases human contact—all for a lukewarm burrito dropped off by someone who couldn’t afford gas until your tip cleared. This is a wage gap with dipping sauce.
And it works because people are hungry—literally and metaphorically.
You’re broke, you’re tired, you’re working two jobs, and here comes the algorithm whispering, “Go ahead. Just pay for it later.”
They’re not offering you flexibility. They’re banking on instability.
So if DoorDash wasn’t the answer… and Klarna sure as hell isn’t helping you spend less…
then I’m back at the two levers again: spend less, or earn more.
But “earn more” always comes with its own set of strings.
From the factory boom to the gig economy crash, from Think and Grow Rich to get rich quick, the same myth gets hauled back out, rebranded for the desperate:
Hustle harder. Own your future. Be your own boss.
And I bought in. We all did.
I read Success Magazine in the ’80s. Listened to Tony Robbins in the ’90s. Watched real estate seminars flood hotel ballrooms in the early 2000s like some spiritual sequel to Amway.
Look, according to the Federal Reserve and recent reports, over 50% of all financial assets—stocks, mutual funds, business equity—are owned by just the top 1% of Americans. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% hold most of their net worth in real estate—homes, mortgages, tangible but immobile assets--and own almost no businesses.
Most small business owners, I’d argue don’t actually own small businesses as much as they have bought themselves a w-2 job with more paperwork and more potential. But entrepreneurialism was never freedom. It has always been a survival strategy.
Even real estate—this thing I now do full-time—hasn’t “set me free.”
It just gave me a shot at playing the same rigged game from a different square on the Monopoly board. And it has allowed me to earn more money, where for the most part, the only limit is the limit I set myself.
And sending my daughter to NYC for a summer, I don’t regret that financial hardship at all because when an opportunity comes along, whether you are ready or not, you should grab hold tight and run and figure it out as you go.
LAST WEEK IN THE STOCK MARKET:
Confidence is Cracking (like an $8 dollar egg): Tariffs, Tech, Top-Heavy Markets, the Shadow Economy, and No One Believes the Data Anymore.
After weeks of mixed signals and macro murkiness, investors chose caution wrapped in optimism—not celebration.
The major indexes logged gains—the S&P 500 rose 1.2%, the Dow added 0.9%, and the Nasdaq led with a 1.5% climb—but it wasn’t a victory lap. This was more like the market pausing to catch its breath after running uphill in uncertain weather.
Momentum is fading, and everyone knows it. Beneath the surface, the story becomes even more precarious: the S&P’s strength came almost entirely from mega-cap tech, while broader market participation looked pitiful.
Fewer than half of NYSE stocks are trading above their 200-day moving averages—a stark reminder that this is not confidence, but concentration. The rally has become dangerously top-heavy, with the “Magnificent Seven” propping up a market that’s standing on stilts. A stumble from one or two—Tesla’s dip or Apple’s regulatory drama—could shake the whole thing.
Bitcoin’s 3.4% drop echoed the market’s waning risk appetite. Bonds barely flinched, with the 10-year Treasury yield hovering around 4.27%, signaling little expectation of a Fed pivot. Rates remain in a holding pattern, and Jay Powell isn’t leaving breadcrumbs. Gold edged higher, a subtle nod to the persistent undercurrent of unease. Housing starts surprised to the upside, but consumer spending cooled, and manufacturing data softened.
This isn’t collapse—the market is still moving, tiptoeing forward, but it’s in the hallway—ears pressed to the door, listening for trouble.
Big Themes to Watch:
1. Politicization and Deconstruction of Data Infrastructure
There’s a coordinated dismantling of advisory committees across economic departments—particularly those that guide labor and inflation statistics. This move isn’t about cost-cutting (since these experts work unpaid); it’s about limiting external expert influence on official economic data, likely to allow greater narrative control. It’s also part of a broader anti-bureaucratic agenda that threatens transparency and data integrity in economic policymaking.
➡️ Watch for: Increased use of unvetted data, suppression of conflicting economic indicators, and greater politicization of BLS and BEA output.
2. Structural Whiplash: Deregulation vs. Destabilization
The Trump administration blends aggressive deregulation (which builders and some investors cheer) with highly disruptive trade, immigration, and fiscal maneuvers (which spook markets, hurt builders, and leave the Fed paralyzed). This creates a volatile push-pull between pro-growth rhetoric and inflationary policy chaos, especially visible in sectors like housing and energy.
➡️ Watch for: Tactical deregulation being undermined by the very tariffs and deportations that destabilize the supply chains and labor markets they aim to empower.
3. Shadow Stagflation and Economic Sentiment Collapse
Even as employment holds and consumer spending stays modestly resilient, sticky inflation and rising pessimism are creating the shadow of stagflation. What’s different this time is that consumer sentiment is breaking down before real macro weakness takes hold. The result is an economy held aloft by habit, not confidence—the mood is breaking faster than the data.
➡️ Watch for: A growing divergence between "hard" data (jobs, spending) and "soft" data (consumer sentiment, business optimism), which historically foreshadows deeper downturns.
4. “Tariff Time Bomb” and the New Era of Uncertainty
The April 2 “Liberation Day” has become a kind of economic doomsday clock. Tariffs are already roiling homebuilding, retail, auto, and food prices—but no one knows how many will actually hit, how long they’ll last, or what retaliations might come. This open-ended uncertainty is smothering forecasting models and boardroom strategy.
➡️ Watch for: Massive volatility in markets, sudden corporate warnings (like FedEx and Nike), and increased consumer confusion as price signals become more erratic and politicized.
Looking Ahead:
1. The Shadow Economy Is Coming Into Focus
We’re witnessing the rise of a shadow economy—not hidden, but blurred. One where traditional data sets no longer tell the full story, and investor sentiment often defies logic. Behind every policy announcement is a market asking, do we believe them? With consumer confidence diverging from spending habits and job numbers obscured by part-time and gig work, the real economy is starting to feel like a mirage. Expect greater scrutiny of the numbers—and louder debates over what’s real and what’s smoke.
2. Sticky Inflation, Soft Data, and the Fed’s Tightrope
The Fed’s next move is less about inflation data and more about managing expectations in an increasingly fragmented economy. While CPI has eased slightly, wage pressures and services inflation remain stubborn. Add in softer retail and industrial production figures, and the question becomes: does the Fed pause too long and miss a slowdown—or move too early and reignite inflation?
3. Tariff Fallout Begins to Hit the Real Economy
New rounds of tariffs are beginning to ripple through the system. Industries dependent on imports—appliances, electronics, automotive—are seeing cost pressures build. Construction inputs like steel and copper have already jumped, and small businesses are bracing for more pain. Expect upcoming ISM manufacturing and services data to reflect these pressures. If input costs stay high, pricing power becomes a privilege, not a given—especially in sectors already struggling with margin compression.
4. Wall Street vs. Main Street: The Sentiment Divide Widens
Markets have staged an uneasy rally, buoyed by AI optimism and earnings resilience. But Main Street is telling a different story: personal savings rates are dropping, credit card delinquencies are rising, and small business optimism just hit a post-pandemic low. The disconnect isn’t just economic—it’s psychological. Watch for renewed volatility if that tension snaps, especially as earnings from consumer-facing companies roll in.
In other news, egg prices are still up nearly 9% month-over-month. Though they've recently begun to crack, dropping nearly 50% from their March peak of over $8 a dozen to around $4.08 as of March 19, they’re still not exactly affordable.
Need a workaround? In baking, you can sub one egg with a quarter cup of plain yogurt and half a teaspoon of oil—or go full DIY homesteader with one tablespoon of ground flaxseed soaked in three tablespoons of water for ten minutes. For scrambled eggs, try adding cottage cheese to your single-hoarded whisked egg. And if you’re eyeing those pastel-dyed Easter eggs, consider marshmallows instead—just make sure to use darker dyes for a more authentic vibe.
President Trump, never one to skip a moment for credit, declared: “In a very short period of time we’ve done very well.” Of course, that “we” mostly means importing eggs from countries like Turkey and South Korea—not solving any actual supply issues or avian bird flu worries which has now, fun twist, jumped into cows and dairy products.
Which begs the question: if the eggs are from Turkey, are they still chicken eggs? Shouldn’t turkey eggs at least be bigger?
Also? People are just eating fewer eggs. Because even at $4.08 a dozen, they’re still not cheap.
I haven’t been to the grocery store yet, so we’ll see how this all actually pans out later today. 🥚