[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.