> that subsidize services at the expense of service providers (e.g. drivers, warehouse workers)

In the case of Uber/Lyft, it appears from the economics that they're subsidizing services more so at the expense of investors.

In other words, the bulk of the financial burden is in the form of burning through VC/Debt $$$ they've raised. Sure, they also have been known to try to shaft the gig workers here and there, but they're by no means the ones shouldering the bulk of the burden for the subsidizing.

Otherwise, there would be little incentive for gig workers to ever join that platform to begin with.

Fair points, I don't have data refuting them.

But FWIW - in India many drivers have been lured into taking a car loan with the promise of high returns, so as to boost supply, which results in net negative income at the end of the day/week/month, despite having worked like a machine

> lured into taking a car loan with the promise of high returns

Sounds like college in the US :)

Is there evidence that Amazon treats warehouse workers worse than other warehouse/fulfillment companies do? All the anecdotal evidence I've heard is that Amazon treats people about the same, but pays better than the competition.

Amazon is the biggest and Bezos has too fancy yacht, thats why they get all the attention. Fair assumption is that amazon is not that different, maybe it is even a bit above average because they get so much attention.

Is there any evidence that companies like Uber and Amazon would be able to grow "ethically" to the extent they have if they just had more time?

We probably have not heard about their ethical competitors which returned -100% to the investors.

This raises many questions about how ethics are defined if it is flat out impossible under all market conditions.