> So in what world are startups going to have the funding or the infrastructure to have warehouses worldwide to compete with Amazon or servers to compete with AWS?

In a competitive market you don't have that. Instead of a massive conglomerate having a warehouse in every region, Alice, Bob and Carol each have a warehouse near New York, Dan, Erin and Frank have one near Houston, etc., and then a dozen independent aggregators each negotiate with a warehouse in each region to store goods for anyone who wants to offer fast delivery everywhere.

Meanwhile doing that, whether you're Amazon or not, is inefficient for anything that doesn't need to be delivered on short notice. If you have a recurring subscription to get a box of toiletries every month, it doesn't matter if it arrives on the 17th because they mailed it from a local warehouse on the 16th or a centralized warehouse on the 10th, and delivery companies offer discounts if you palletize shipments based on region even if they come from a central location, which removes the cost of having local warehouses for those regions.

> Or in Google’s case the infrastructure to design custom processors with the demand to actually buy enough slots from TSMC to make it affordable?

If there is aggregate demand for those processors then you sell them to the other people who want them regardless of whether they're within the same corporation, and then they don't have to be.

> You can’t make laws to undue scale efficiencies. A startup isn’t going to make a phone in their garage to compete with Apple no matter what magically thinking they have about the government passing laws.

The defect is in expecting one entity to make the entire phone.

One company makes a screen, one makes a battery, one designs a processor, another fabs it, another makes memory, another makes the OS (or it's open source), another lays out the system board to integrate the various components, another does final assembly, etc.

When you don't require the whole thing to be done under the same umbrella it doesn't take a trillion dollar company to do any given piece.

> Most startups can’t even pay the wages of a mid level employee at BigTech company that has been out of school for three years.

Suppose phone components were easily available as a fungible commodity, and had standardized interfaces so that integrating them was only a modest amount of work, i.e. a year of effort for a full-time engineer. Then you get a phone which sells as an also-ran -- a million units a year for three years, less than 0.5% of Apple's sales volume. The phone sells for $250, less than the cheapest new iPhone, and 0.5% of the retail price goes to pay the engineer.

Then they'd be making $3.75M for that year of work. Those numbers could be off by 10 fold and still be a competitive salary.

Except that the market is too concentrated and the standards don't exist, which means it's not that easy as things are now.

> Just like any other industry, if a startup can’t afford the free market price of labor, that’s a them problem.

The issue is, is it a free market, or a captured one?