Why do investors invest in a founder-controlled company, where the founders have more than 50% stake? To make money, I would assume, is why they do it?
I'm sure it's a barrier, but it apparently isn't one that rules out all investment, since investors do it with founder-controlled companies, right? There is even entirely non-voting stock, which people invest in.
If it were decided through political processes that worker-owned cooperatives were a public good to be encouraged, there could be additional incentive/subsidy through the tax code or other means for investing in minority stakes in them. (As the government subsidizes/incentivizes homeownership or higher ed tuition. Or for that matter, ESOP's for another route to minority employee ownership).
>To make money, I would assume, is why they do it?
If the only option were a drivers cooperative, then yes they might go for it (although they're still going to be competing against other forms of investment, eg. other stocks). However that's rarely the case, because there's going to be non-cooperatives which don't have workers taking up 50% of the stake.
>since investors do it with founder-controlled companies, right? There is even entirely non-voting stock, which people invest in.
They only do that because they think the founders are valuable. I don't see how the same dynamic exists with mostly replaceable drivers.
They can still believe in the leadership of the project. After all, many investors invest without themselves having a majority stake. If you own 3% of a company, the other 97% might be other investors, or might be some other investors and some worker-owners, you still only own 3%. Not everyone thinks worker-owners are any less capable of making good decisions towards the success of the endeavor than investors, although I gather you do.
Sometimes worker-owned businesses do well in fact because the worker-owners are willing to put in more energy and sacrifice for their business than typical employees, worker-ownership can be a plus. (Obviously plenty fail too, not saying it's some kind of magic invulnerability).
Look, all I can say is this is an actual thing that happens, there are hybrid ownership worker coops taht also have investors, it literally exists in reality.
As I keep saying, I agree there are reasons some investors rae reluctant to invest, and the government could provide subsidy or incentives to change that calculus somewhat, the same way the government does for all sorts of economic activity that is considered socially desirable. It's true that worker coops have barriers to raising capital, but this really is one way some have done it, despite the challenges, it literally happens in reality, so if you're trying to argue that it doesn't, that's a weird argument.
>After all, many investors invest without themselves having a majority stake. If you own 3% of a company, the other 97% might be other investors, or might be some other investors and some worker-owners, you still only own 3%.
That's not exactly the same. If you invest in a regular company, the other 97% of investors contributed capital, making the company worth more. On the other hand, in a owner coop the 50% (or whatever % share allocated to the workers) is essentially dead weight. There might be some value that the workers add (increased loyalty?), but I doubt whether that has actual value in the context of a ridesharing platform where turnover is high and the workers are more-or-less replaceable.
>Look, all I can say is this is an actual thing that happens, there are hybrid ownership worker coops taht also have investors, it literally exists in reality.
It's hard to infer motivations here, because what they're doing is blending rational investing (eg. maximizing risk adjusted returns) with philanthropy. While it's technically true that worker coops can find "investors", having to rely on the generosity of others isn't exactly a sound business strategy.
Buddy, I don't know what you are trying to argue for.
Worker-owned coops exist, thousands of them. Some of them have investors. Some of them fail, some of them have been in business for decades. Yes, raising capital can be challenging for worker-owned coops, my first post on the topic literally said that. But there are ways it can be done, that have actually been done.
I gather you think worker-owned coops are a terrible idea, that's fine you're entitled to your opinion.
I'm sure it's a barrier, but it apparently isn't one that rules out all investment, since investors do it with founder-controlled companies, right? There is even entirely non-voting stock, which people invest in.
If it were decided through political processes that worker-owned cooperatives were a public good to be encouraged, there could be additional incentive/subsidy through the tax code or other means for investing in minority stakes in them. (As the government subsidizes/incentivizes homeownership or higher ed tuition. Or for that matter, ESOP's for another route to minority employee ownership).