[SuoDuanDao]

They're held up in some idyllic form because while they're worse for customers, they're on average much better for employees. 'Small business' isn't just meant to be heartwarming when talked about as important - small businesses also spend a much larger percentage of their money on wages.

[gonehome]

This feels like a false dichotomy to me (if it’s true which I’m not certain of).

It’s not very good for employees if your small business customers don’t like you and as a result you have to close.

A local car dealership may be great for its employees by ripping off customers and generally being a terrible experience, but I won’t have much sympathy when direct to consumer sales come and wipe them out.

Small businesses need to offer something of value to customers that’s real and differentiated as opposed to a narrative of their own self interest. In short - they have to be competitive. There’s no reason they can’t do this while also being good to employees.

A lot of the complaints I see come across as sour grapes and trying to legislate their existence rather than just being better and caring about what customers want.

At its best capitalism is a force for aligning value and interests between provider and customer. On net this leads to more efficient distribution and better outcomes for the most people.

At its worst it’s rent seeking and leveraging local power over people without choice. Small businesses often fall on that side of the spectrum to me.

[SuoDuanDao]

It's not that simple. Small businesses, like small anything, are less efficient than larger versions. The inefficiencies inevitably bother customers.

It just so happens that in business, much of that inefficiency is the number of employees required per unit of economic activity. Ultimately all employees are an unwanted cost to the consumer. Small businesses have fewer options to avoid that cost, so they account for more employment.