[maerF0x0]

Why cant the workers pool their available capital, and if they're sufficiently productive why cant they do some to generate more?

Tech workers are considered to be highly paid, so if anyone could accumulate capital it's them.

[jasode]

>Why cant the workers pool their available capital, [...] Tech workers are considered to be highly paid,

The highly-paid workers can pool capital... if we're speaking in hypotheticals. The hypothetical tech workers can hypothetically pool their capital together to form a 100% worker-owned co-operative.

On the other hand, my comments are explaining what real people have been doing in the real world. E.g. ex-Google employee Kevin Systrom didn't form Instagram as a workers co-op. And ex-Yahoo employees Jan Kuom and Brian Acton also didn't form WhatsApp as a workers co-op. They could have -- hypothetically -- but they didn't. (Those startups did have Incentive Stock Options but that's not the workers ownership people are thinking about when speaking of "workers co-op".)

We can see that most ex-employees with access to money do not form co-ops. Why? The ex-employees-now-the-founders see no financial incentive to do so.

The workers who actually _want_ co-ops are not the ones out there creating new companies.

[WalterBright]

Harry Hardworker is also not going to want to share his compensation equally with Dan Deadwood.

[maerF0x0]

The coops i've seen, in practice, are mostly low capital required things. So your point does make sense.

I've mostly seen coffee shops, bike/repair shops, breweries, some restaurants.

These are both not capital intensive, and are pretty well commodified too unfortunately.