[jasode]

>Pick an industry where money is not the issue, such as self-funded software startups, and co-ops don’t form.

Because the owner/founder of the self-funded software company doesn't want to dilute their ownership with workers. Owning 100% of a self-funded startup and just hire employees with 0% ownership is seen as a bigger financial reward from the owner's perspective. The employees get a salary and the owners get the excess profits. This thinking of how to split the pie is rooted in money.

There may be some minor employee-ownership benefits such as ESOP (employee stock option plan) for retirement plans or ISO (incentive stock options) but the core reasons for co-ops not being popular is still based on money. Co-ops are not just arbitrary administrative slicing of a corporation; it is about dividing the economic pie a different way that benefits some at the expense of others. The founders of new companies must be willing to give up significant and meaningful ownership percentage to potential employees who have no leverage to fulfill the vision of a workers-owned co-op. Most founders won't do it because of money.

A bunch of lawyers and farmers forming "professional co-ops" are not relevant to this discussion that got triggered by an IBM middle-manager getting laid off because she wasn't a part-owner of a co-op.

[robocat]

I am arguing that the need for capital is not the primary reason co-ops don’t form.

You are talking about something else (I am not actually sure what you are trying to say - you appear to be agreeing with me).

I also gave you two other independent reasons (see QEDs) to fortify my primary argument: I did not give you a three legged chair where you could knock one leg out.