I don't think it's as easy as hand waving it away as "your competitor's labor". Your competitors labor is your community, it's people. I believe we all have an ethical responsibility to that.
For the points you brought up, why is stagnation for the purposes of upholding an ethical position a bad thing?
And yes, by definition, worrying about ethical responsibility would lead to ethical issues. That's the whole point.
So should we all be farming and collecting berries? Most advancements since have put people out of jobs in "competitors" that didn't adapt. Still the unemployment rate isn't 99.9%. Yet we displaced whole industries many times over the centuries. Obviously people move to better jobs and find other things to do. There's nothing particularly good about sitting on a computer denying people insurance all day, why not have a computer do it?
If it is a choice between progress unfettered by concern for your "competitor's labor" or farming berries, I choose berries.
However, I believe there's a middle ground and endeavor to find it. Based on your response it doesn't appear as though you believe a middle ground exists.
Choosing berries (ie not progressing to "protect jobs" - no jobs are protected, we have close to full employment worldwide) is choosing avoidable deaths. Child mortality rate in a "choose berries" world is just one example that makes me triggered by those that have that position.
And you get nothing in return for protecting those jobs, as I said, the world is "employed" and we've killed many industries already over the centuries. You're protecting nothing.
For the points you brought up, why is stagnation for the purposes of upholding an ethical position a bad thing?
And yes, by definition, worrying about ethical responsibility would lead to ethical issues. That's the whole point.