The worker-owned businesses that are more effective will do a better job of concentrating wealth though, as they don't have to pay investors back dividends or participate in stock buybacks.
Software in general is a field quite compatible with initial self-funding, in ways you can't say for other industries.
But even still, investors threw away gobs of money on clearly unsustainable businesses like NFTs, and capitalism in general is happy to sell people the rope they will use to hang capitalists, so it's not even impossible to find investors if you absolutely need them.
Pair the lack of ongoing payments to investors or lenders with the superior execution of worker-led organizations, and companies such as these should pretty clearly mop up their competitors saddled with non-value-added executive management and non-value-added investors.
That is, assuming these roles don't provide any value to companies.
There's some natural experiments that show that this happens, and is successful, when funding dries up a little. The early to mid 2000s were marked by a huge amount of bootstrapped companies that were quite successful. But VCs can distort a market to a huge degree and have huge effects on the labour market and even things like sales by preferring insider deals and introductions that it can crowd out smaller companies who can't outspend the VC-led companies.
> The worker-owned businesses that are more effective will do a better job of concentrating wealth though, as they don't have to pay investors back dividends or participate in stock buybacks.
That’s only close to possible if we start with the assumption that all businesses are billion dollar businesses.
This is also unrelated with the possibility to bootstrap a business without money.
Most people can’t just stop working and start working for no cash.
I might be missing some obvious sarcasm, though!