>>33849580
>the more cruel methods are used to get even a slight edge over the competition
That's a false equivalency, becoming more effective as a business does not automatically require "cruel" practices. It could be as simple as switching accounting firms and saving on fees.
>That is unless he innovates and provides something unique or objectively better that the competition does not
You mean like the west has been doing for the past century? It's not 1870 anymore, we don't have sooty sweatshops with dangerous mills being manned by 12 year olds in the west (maybe in stinky India or Chinkland).
When Henry Ford introduced the first semi-automated assembly line, injuries went down, the time workers needed to spend in factories went down, but worker wages and quality of life went up. While some of this can be attributed to Ford's magnanimous nature, innovation definitely played a part.
>>33849606
>dipshit friend who hates anyone with money because he grew up poor
I grew up poor as well but I have a triple digit IQ and an optimistic outlook so instead of staying poor I made something of myself and started a business. Had no help from investors or family but this will be our fourth year in business and our second year of doing over $1M topline.
It really is only stupid lazy people who end up poor, but most of humanity is lazy and stupid so what do you expect.