I can't go inside Whole foods after this. Same reason I won't answer an Amazon recruiter's email. It's disturbing to think of the race to the bottom (in terms of worker compensation and benefits) that Amazon brings to industries it's taken over.
But you and I and everyone else who decides not the shop there; we don't make a dent. You cannot vote with your dollars. There are still way too many people who don't care or who follow the advertising. It's the reason why Uber will be around for decades.
Public Relations/Propaganda/Marketing is amazing. McDonalds convinced millions of Americans the girl who sued for spilling coffee on herself had fought and won a frivolous lawsuit when the reality was far from the truth:
Anecdotally all the ex-Amazon folks I know have horror stories of their own... Having said that as a customer I LOVE Amazon, I have de-Googled my life as much as possible, but Amazon is addiction and my (not so) secret shame...
Fun fact - Brian Valentine, a well revered engineering director in Windows up until ~2010 went over to Amazon and basically rebuilt the exact same Windows software team there - employees, structure, and all. The same team that gave you Vista gave you Alexa and basically every other Kindle product (that's not meant to be a knock against vista or that team)
Also, I disagree that Uber will be around for decades, but it's primarily because of their finances.
Luxury goods, Veblen goods, and virtue / honest signalling, generally, avoid rampant RttB effects -- Whole Foods itself would be an example, Apple another.
Untrammeled competition on the mass market of complex goods almost always tends toward RttB. It seems that there's an exceedingly strong and pervasive Gresham's Law dynamic across multiple domains, which I've been looking into.
What keeps this from becoming total seems to be a mix of factors. Apple, for example, as a small fraction of either mobile (15%) or desktop (5%) markets, by unit sales, but has profit margins at a level which make it the most highly-valued joint-stock corporation in the world. It achieves this through a focus on some elements of product quality -- I wouldn't call Apple hacker-friendly, in the same way Linux or FreeBSD are (despite similarities), but it's been far more user friendly than Microsoft in many regards, if you're willing to pay a premium.
And a certain portion of the market gets that.
(The dynamic in the case of mobile is similar: more expensive than Android, not hacker-friendly, but vastly less aggrevating to use for the somewhat-discerning user.)
Essentially, if you're going to move off the bottom, you may be able to, but you're going to be limited to a certain niche.
If there are very large scaling efficiencies to size, even that becomes a challenge.
You'll find similar stories across various products and services. Generally, the smaller the market (in terms of total buyers), and more discerning, the more likely a higher-quality product can survive. With market size (and non-discerning customers) comes worse product.
From the customer point of view, Costco is pretty much the definition of competing on nothing but price: a race to the bottom.
(I know, yes, they pay employees [relatively] well.)
Also, their model is pretty good as far as membership goes -- if you spend enough at Costco, your membership is free, because you get cash back. And a little known fact, even if you don't spend enough to pay for your membership, if you ask them, they will increase your cash back reward to make up for it anyway.