&gt;Obviously improving things even a little is better than not improving them at all. People just disagree whether what the author sees as a clear improvement is in fact so -- that&#x27;s why you and the GP disagree.<p>Not true: in all the examples given, the critics never articlulate a mechanism for how that could be true. I know because I look for this every time such a scenario comes up.<p>You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that &quot;because a good argument exists, that must be what these critics <i>really</i> mean&quot;; that because there&#x27;s academic literature on optimal tariffs, that&#x27;s what&#x27;s grounding the protectionists who complain about &quot;takin&#x27; our jobs&quot;. But the people referred to in the post don&#x27;t articulate how eg Uber surge pricing made things worse, only that &quot;hey they&#x27;re visible and related to suffering&quot;. If and when people cite how Uber surge pricing reduces service, Uber supporters are more than willing to have that discussion!<p>If the argument only exists in a philosophical article that almost none of the critics have heard of, you can&#x27;t really say that&#x27;s driving their critique.