Because workers often stake their livelihoods on a single source of income. This is perilous enough when the source of income is result of them making contribut

Because workers often stake their livelihoods on a single source of income. This is perilous enough when the source of income is result of them making contributions to the economy at the actual market rate. But there is nothing "market rate" about rank-and-file work for a company that's pouring gasoline on VC money and setting it ablaze. If demand for your labor is only due to artificially low prices, that demand will evaporate once growth targets are met. See also: existing business that was disrupted. If the new service is not actually more efficient and was only able to undercut existing players on price because of VC money, there are no real long-term winners on the ground. Sure, maybe some founders, early employees, and investors net a tidy profit, but that profit isn't based on an actual economic contribution if the product isn't viable after the VC spigot gets turned off