> Co-ops seem like they should out perform from a worker incentive point of view. , why are co-ops basically non-existent in Big Tech. WinCo, groceries, and REI, expensive outdoor stuff, in the US are both big co-ops but are retailers.

REI is a consumer coop, not a labor co-op (and WinCo, while employee-owned through an ESOP, is not a co-op at all.)

Cooperative Home Care Associates, a home health care agency HQ’d in the Bronx, appears to be the largest US labor cooperatives (and labor intensive service industries are probably the most common places to find labor coops in the US.)

> Maybe VC money warps the economics so that every company needs to be winner takes all lotto tickets for the investors. Having it be worker owned gets rid of the extreme ROÍ VCs expect.

Right. VC goals and labor coop goals are almost never aligned, and instead are almost diametrically opposed. Labor coops tend to favor conservative expansion and risk mitigation and stability. VC’s want to swing for the fences on scale—a succesful steady-state business that will pay its founding employees good pay forever but not expand much is a massive failure for VCs, but a win for a labor coop.

Oh thanks for setting me straight on WinCo and REI. I didn’t realize they weren’t labor co-ops. That is what I get for being lazy and not questioning the marketing. Too late for me to edit my post though.

Does “consumer co-op” mean that you have to buy a plastic card in order to get the corporation money, like Costco?

VCs don’t have ROI. They’re gambling with someone else’s money and taking big fees. ROI implies that there is a return — but they’re already making more than they deserve just for the fee, and they are not investing anything themselves.