A purely F/OSS company could potentially profit way more from your code than you do and still comply with the license. You'd be free to reincorporate their code back into yours, of course. But code isn't money.
This can foster more community than if MIT code were to be taken and locked behind closed doors, for profit and to no benefit for the devs that made it possible.
This is anti the ethos of GPL [1]
And that's fine, you choose a list or rules that fitted with your wants, you don't have to respect A/GPL.
But time and time again we see most people on HN not respecting the A/GPL ethos they clam to follow and not understanding what A/GPL will mean in practice.
> disproportionately profiting
Off Topic to GPL. Corporations have provided more value to the world than any person. Which is almost a tautology since corporations are just groups of people working together. "Disproportionately profiting off of my labor" would mean they are providing amazing resources to people who need them.
You sound like you don't want others to succeed. Which is different to you need to make money to live.
[1] The legal/logical issues we see with AGPL are from trying to get the license to match the ethos. It's commendable they did stick it out.
I think trying to prevent disproportionate profit by big companies is plenty compatible with the ethos. The ethos of GPL is all about the end user, after all.
> would mean they are providing amazing resources
No it doesn't mean that.
If by value you mean: "have increased gini coefficient", then yes, corporations have done that.