If hiring one person changes the calculus that much, it's nonetheless easy to afford if profitable companies paid their workers more instead of sending it to shareholders or doing stock buybacks. The proportion of wealth held by the managerial class exceeds the Roman Empire at its height. https://persquaremile.com/2011/12/16/income-inequality-in-th... For reference, the gini coefficient of the united states in 2016 was 0.48. Rome at its population peak was between 0.42-0.44 according to the article. A gini coefficient of 0 is a perfectly equal society and a coefficient of 1 is perfectly unequal.
Small startups also often get the benefit of reduced regulatory burden, which is fitting because they have less overall impact on society. Once they become large, it is fitting that they play by rules that benefit the majority.
How is a gini coefficient relevant to higher priced products due to regulatory overhead?
It seems you have an axe to grind and derailed the conversion to compare the US with ancient Rome. Please provide a citation showing a correlation between increased privacy regulations and reduced gini coefficients.
I was responding to the claim that increased privacy would lead to possibly unacceptable price increases. I accept as axiomatic that increased privacy reduces profits, because, for one, you can't sell data that is private let alone the regulatory burden. My position is that these vociferous critiques of even minor bequests to the public are ill founded.
Small startups also often get the benefit of reduced regulatory burden, which is fitting because they have less overall impact on society. Once they become large, it is fitting that they play by rules that benefit the majority.