This argument, imo, frames the problem as an individual one and shifts the burden to the individual consumer, whereas it really is a societal problem and the burden should be on economic regulators and tax laws to ensure that disparities like this are not possible in the first place. Yes the individual consumer can choose to shop at smaller competitors, but this is 1. not realistic for everyone due to geographic/economic/other reasons, and 2. ignores that fact that massive competitors have the ability to take temporary losses if it means putting the smaller competitor out of business. Not to mention that while the exorbitant CEO/worker gap is unconscionable, having systems that work well at scale is a good thing and should be encouraged.
This argument, imo, frames the problem as an individual one and shifts the burden to the individual consumer, whereas it really is a societal problem and the burden should be on economic regulators and tax laws to ensure that disparities like this are not possible in the first place. Yes the individual consumer can choose to shop at smaller competitors, but this is 1. not realistic for everyone due to geographic/economic/other reasons, and 2. ignores that fact that massive competitors have the ability to take temporary losses if it means putting the smaller competitor out of business. Not to mention that while the exorbitant CEO/worker gap is unconscionable, having systems that work well at scale is a good thing and should be encouraged.