The Math (and Philosophy) of Sliding Scale
Sliding scale pricing is often talked about as a way to create access. What we don’t talk about enough is how it impacts the service provider’s ability to make a living, especially when client or project volume is low.
I’ve been running mock numbers for both yoga studios and my own freelance design work, and what stands out is this: volume does matter when it comes to a sliding scale.
Why Project Volume Shapes Sustainability
Take a yoga studio. Even if 30 students all pay something on a sliding scale, if the collective contributions don’t meet the baseline costs of rent, teacher pay, and overhead, the math doesn’t work. It’s not about generosity or guilt, it’s about the floor that keeps the doors open.
The same is true for freelancers. For example, I charge $1,500 for my one-page modular site or $4,500++ for a custom site. While this does create a strong hourly rate (150–200/hr), at one or two projects a month, the annual income often falls short of even a modest salary. The work is profitable per project, but there just aren’t enough projects to cover overhead and reach a living income (which means I am dependent on my partner’s income)
This is where volume matters more than any single price point.
These two graphs tell the same story in different settings. A yoga studio can’t keep the doors open without enough members, just like a freelancer can’t reach a livable income without enough projects. Sliding scale can shift who pays what, but volume is what makes sustaining the sliding scale possible.
Tiered Scale and Weighted Scale
A tiered scale (low, mid, high) is simple and easy to explain. A weighted scale adds nuance, asking clients to reflect on what they’re carrying and what they can contribute.
Both invite more fairness than a flat, one-size-fits-all price. Both widen the circle of access.
And both also meet the same limit: if client volume is low, there’s less room for balance. One person choosing the lower end of the scale can tip sustainability off track when there aren’t enough others choosing higher.
Why Sliding Scale Fits Group Classes
Sliding scale becomes more sustainable when there’s volume. In group settings like yoga classes, workshops, or trainings, the collective contributions balance out. Some students may pay less, others may pay more, and together the group still covers rent, teacher pay, and overhead.
For example, imagine a class with 20 students with a scale of $10 - $20
Some pay $10, some pay $15, some pay $20.
The average contribution comes to about $12 per student.
Collectively, the class brings in $240, which can cover teacher pay and some of the overhead for that class.
No single person is responsible for carrying the whole cost. Instead, the group carries it together, which is exactly where sliding scale works best.
For one-to-one services like private sessions or freelance design projects, there’s less room for that balance. With only a handful of clients, one person choosing the lower end of the scale can’t easily be offset. In these lower-volume settings, a sustainability floor becomes essential.
The Practice of Enough in a Capitalist World
In yoga, brahmacarya is often understood as moderation, living with enough and using energy wisely.
But here’s the paradox: we are practicing inside a capitalist society that does not reward “enough.” Rent is not moderate. Internet and software subscriptions are not moderate. Health insurance is not moderate.
So while yoga reminds us to live simply, the economics of sustaining a yoga studio or freelancing as a designer require us to face real costs.
Naming a sustainability floor is not greed. It is survival. It is how we keep the doors open, keep serving clients, keep teaching, and keep showing up for our work.
The Question of Yoga Studios Themselves
Some will argue that there shouldn’t be yoga studios at all, that charging money for yoga is capitalist by nature. And they’re not wrong to raise the question. Yoga wasn’t born from a profit model. It wasn’t designed to fit into spreadsheets or sliding scales.
But this is the tension many of us live in: holding space for practice inside a society that runs on money. Teachers and community spaces can’t bypass rent, groceries, or payroll. To sustain the work, we have to acknowledge the system we’re in, even if we long for something different.
Naming that contradiction doesn’t make studios less yogic. If anything, it makes them more honest. It’s saying: yes, this is a practice rooted in brahmacarya and abundance, and yes, in this world, we also have to name our costs.
Holding Both Sides of the Scale
Sliding scale, whether tiered or weighted, is a practice of equity. It asks us to open access wider. Sustainability floors are a practice of care, for ourselves, for our work, and for our ability to keep showing up.
Neither cancels the other out. Both are needed. Both are imperfect. And both can shift as our communities and capacities shift.
Sliding scale only works when it meets sustainability. Equity and survival aren’t opposites, they’re part of the same practice. In a capitalist society, practicing brahmacarya means finding the balance point where you honor “enough” for your community and for yourself even when the existence of the studio itself is part of the contradiction.
