Thanks for linking to that article. While it is indeed thoughtful, I'm not swayed by "the lesser of two bad options" being an argument for supporting paying people less for "exposure" to opportunity. Incremental improvement can look beneficial, until it isn't. I don't consider being able to get an expensive taxi as better as having no taxi -- a poor person can't access the taxi in any case to begin with.

This sort of ethics is almost shame-oriented, with a subtle "You should be appreciative you got anything" undercurrent in its view of the world. Does that mean we should only put the bare minimum of human consideration into our business offerings? That's how we got such destructive capitalist practices.

If humans cannot do business that is equitable to all parties, it shouldn't be happening. If that means some rich people can't access a service because it's not scalable yet or a tech firm has to hire developers to get code written, so be it. I can't get whatever I want, or justify getting it by swindling others. Why should a company?

There seems to be this in-built value in modern society that it's okay to totally screw somebody if you fit into some business-accepted guard-rails. Please note that business ethics are an oxymoron.