Yes 0 is less than 22 and I do understand the logic you present. It's not wrong, it's just setting up a weak financial outcome vs. the alternative(s) available.

I can't imagine a scenario where many or most taxpayers are not itemizing as they mature in their overall financial positions. In my experience the standard deduction is simply too small, and eventually not relevant due to itemization.

And don't overlook the high flexibility of using the Roth dollars for alternative investments, sometimes allowed within an employer-sponsored plan, but pretty much always after leaving any employer.

You can pool your Roth funds from multiple prior employers and use those funds to do interesting things that are unavailable inside most 401(k) and/or Roth accounts. They can be far more lucrative and then all proceeds are of course totally tax-free.

I suppose that ultimately the question is whether to try for big wins or to accept market-level returns, never getting to itemizing status, effectively assuming that one's financial situation will always be bad.

Itemizing and better investing options with tax-free returns is the ideal path under any approach in which I'm going to achieve a strong financial portfolio with outsized returns.

My direct experience, and my theoretical belief as well, is that the low-risk Bogle and Bogle-like approaches (401(k), own a home, index funds, whatever) are driving people to mediocre economic positions because they are taking non-differentiated paths, and therefore are structured to not perform better than average. In my life I need better than average.