Enhance ReadabilityI can simultaneously malign Walmart and love Über, but I can’t do so while claiming moral consistency. Both companies leverage economies of scale to reach a mass market and crowd out local competition. There is a key difference, of course. Taxis and the companies that operate them are almost universally unpleasant—especially in the U.S.—so we give Über a pass for upending their model. But we romanticize other types of local businesses—we use the term “mom and pop” as a stand in for “locally owned”—which makes it easier to criticize Walmart.
When you think about it, though, a lot of locally owned shops have limited inventories and can be hard to reach, just like cab companies. Those are problems Walmart solves with broader distribution and easier access, just like Über. Of course, Walmart takes a lowest-price approach, while Über actually charges a premium. Are we giving Über a pass because it caters to a different customer? Or maybe because it’s a tech startup?
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not defending Walmart. I think it’s an awful company that is quantifiably bad for the American employment scene. (For every job a new Walmart store creates, it destroys 1.4 that existed before the store opened.) Nor am I attacking Über—I’ve spent a lot of time in those town cars. I’m just admitting that hating Walmart while utilizing Über might make me a bit of a hypocrite. I suspect I’m not the only one.
Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard has famously limited his company’s growth to avoid having too large an environmental impact. (The brand has even run ad campaigns asking people not to buy stuff from Patagonia unless they really need it.) Would you make a similar decision if your company scaled up? When would you know the time for such a decision had come?
We can all agree that disruption centered on big social problems—pollution, drinking water, education—is a good thing. But as you move out from there, when do companies cross a line into doing more harm than good?
