[randomcarbloke]

it's well established that expansion is the reason coops don't reach the levels of actually competitive entities, the largest of those in that list (retail notwithstanding) exist almost solely due to subsidisation.

Inability to expand is practically built-in to the structure of worker and consumer cooperatives.

That they're free to exist but don't dominate the marketplace (the total revenue of those 300 companies is still less than the revenue of the top 10 non-coops) should be evidence enough but you're welcome to exploree the literature yourself.

[PrimeMcFly]

> That they're free to exist but don't dominate the marketplace

Why do you think not dominating the marketplace is a bad thing?

[randomcarbloke]

I'm saying consumer preference favours more competitive companies...ignore your distaste at the connotations of the word "dominate" and focus on the discussion - coops would be more commonplace, larger, and more successful...which is what you want no? Personally I'm indifferent to coops and their successes, they're a valid business model, they shouldn't be mandated, their structure limits them.

[PrimeMcFly]

I agree about their being more competitive companies, but I disagree that co-ops prevent that.

What is it you think about their structure that limits them?

And regardless of your answer, whatever issues may or may not exist and be limiting, rules and limitations can be adjusted as needed. The fundamental principle is that workers would have more of a say to some extent, but more importantly receive more of the profit that their work produces.

[randomcarbloke]

Workers are currently able to purchase shares in their employer if their employer is listed, giving them a vested interest in its success. Lets stick to worker coops as I think that is the type you're most interested in.

A coop cannot pursue outside investment by issuing shares, it must rely on philanthropy, subsidisation, or loans for this.

Why would an employee-shareholder willingly reliquish their interest in the company to improve productivity and returns for their peers - such as automating away their own role? It necessitates make-work inefficiencies.

Increasing the size of the company doesn't mean an increased return for the employee-shareholders, they might even end up working much harder to just maintain their income - the larger the company gets the truer this becomes as they reach dimishing returns in their sector.

Successful coops get insular and wary of freeriders, as such they prefer to outsource where possible - Mondragon for example outsources labour.

Again the literature is plentiful and on a personal level I have no objection to them, but to believe they are without serious shortcomings is naive.

[PrimeMcFly]

I really dislike your tone, I have to say, calling me naive in this comment, with your last one being condescending and making assumptions. Isn't HN meant to be better than that?

That aside, so your main complaint is people can't invest in coops? There is nothing limiting coops growth except the fact that the members are not trying to become global monopolies. And even if there were some limitation, the context of this discussion is some kind of improvement or alternative to the current system we have today. There is no reason what constitutes a coop could not be refined to eliminate any limitations.

Also, you vaguely claim 'the literature' supports what you are saying without naming anything specific, and I can do the same - there is plenty of literature arguing explicitly in favor of coops, addressing any of the things you claim as issues.