“The word “monopoly” evokes a number of reactions. For some, it means the death of competition and the rise of bully businesses that can jack up prices at their sinister whims. For others, it means family squabbles and slammed game boards from landing on Boardwalk — again — after your little brother put a hotel on it. Either way, rarely does a positive reaction follow discussion of monopolies. Even monopolistic entities themselves try to avoid the term, lest they incur greater scrutiny from the angry masses who are still recovering from the previous night’s board game defeat.
Monopolies are tricky, though. In many instances, they’re better for both consumers and employees than competitive markets. A company that is constantly trying to outmaneuver competitors will likely have little ability or desire to truly take care of its workers. Rather, said workers become more replaceable and interchangeable in a state of perfect competition, since their salaries would be quick to put on the chopping block in the race to cut costs and increase profits. On the other hand, a business that has no real outside threats has the resources and ability to take care of its workers more comprehensively. It’s why Google — which dominates search engine competitors like Yahoo and Microsoft’s Bing to the extent they can hardly be considered competitors — is renowned for how well it treats its employees…”