I'm not sure what you're asking. The staff that are hired away are presumably better off in the matter of ready cash, which is perfectly reasonable. Ethics in job choice are important--you probably shouldn't take a job supporting a CIA hit squad even if the pay is great--but poor restaurant choice, while unpleasant is hardly a human-rights issue.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that choices the "market" made are viewed almost with a sacred reverence by a lot of people. They'll even call you a socialist if you question anything about it. I'm no ethics expert either by studying or being ultra ethical in practice, but I think it's worth it to at least discuss the implications when the market makes a decision that hurts people. It doesn't follow that I'm a socialist. Reading between the lines and categorizing things is useful but it requires a bit more sophistication to be able to adjust those filters and focus on what they're saying not what you perceive as the sub-text. (Note, by you and I don't mean you as in the person I'm responding to I mean a more general "you" as in all of us as I'd like to be more skilled at resisting the default as well)

What I mean is are the costs of the tech industry disrupting the restaurant scene worth benefits. I get that it isn't a problem specific to tech. My city, with a vibrant tech scene, also has a vibrant restaurant scene but the situation described in the article is extreme. It's the sort of thing that could strain a city in a few ways from hurting the middle class to boarded up shops and decaying neighborhoods.

So is it reasonable to ask is worth the damage? It's a reasonable question to ask.