>the capitalist perspective would be that companies that offer a more enticing employment package would naturally have an easier time hiring This assumes that

>the capitalist perspective would be that companies that offer a more enticing employment package would naturally have an easier time hiring This assumes that hiring costs are significant relative to wages, which is rarely the case. >At-will employment seems to mess with that arrangement in the US but here in the UK it seems like a fair trade. The notable difference being the state regulation in the UK which requires employers to provide that stability. And even that is eroding with the rise of zero-hour contracts. >infrastructure such as water can be competed on (both directly as in a second water plant, and indirectly as in building home water tanks) A second water plant isn't competition for the infrastructure, just the purification process. The water still has to get to your house, and the company which has already built a pipe is at a huge advantage compared to one that hasn't. >As for network effects, there comes a point where pain from monopolistic exploitation outweighs the marginal utility of the product. It's certainly possible for monopolists to push things too far and end up vulnerable to a market entrant, but the result of this is a brief period of competition followed by the winner returning to monopolistic behaviour. And the entry cost of this kind of disruption is sufficient that it happens very infrequently.