There's been plenty of cases of startup founders being voted out by their VC or perhaps their former friends, the other founders. Or the board boots them after they do something silly and public, or offensive. What is the point starting a company if they can be voted out?...

There's quite a few variants on the co-op theme.

To create something interesting together rather than just focussing on self-enrichmemt?

You don't get to do that if you're "voted out" aka fired from the company you created to do the interesting thing, likely the interesting thing will fail to happen as well. So...

Why are you so suspicious of your collaborators?

That would make sense if say, 50 people got together and came up with a good idea and started to execute it. But what about the solo person who has a good idea and wants to execute their vision? Coops don't work then.

I’m confused by this sentiment. The person can either execute it themselves or recognize that they need other people’s contributions to succeed and share power/management with them accordingly.

I’ve never understood why having “vision” entitles one to the top position in an authoritarian hierarchy, especially, again, when said “vision” requires other people’s labor for its execution.

Why is paying people for their work not enough? If I want to plant crop A where people are otherwise growing crop B, and I agree to pay person Y Z dollars to tend my fields, why would I need to give person Y some of the crop they tended?

I can see agreeing to give Y some of the crop if they agree to make some kind of sacrifice(Z-n dollars ), but why would they automatically or necessarily get some as a basis of the arrangement? Will they bail me out if the entire thing is a bust, I pay them Z dollars and my crop A is worthless?

> Why is paying people for their work not enough? If I want to plant crop A where people are otherwise growing crop B, and I agree to pay person Y Z dollars to tend my fields, why would I need to give person Y some of the crop they tended?

While I think it’s a bad idea to argue from analogies, because the crops have no value without this tending. It’s the labor invested in tending them that makes them worth anything at all. Owning land/Capital is demonstrably insufficient outside of an economy based exclusively on rentiering.

>Will they bail me out if the entire thing is a bust, I pay them Z dollars and my crop A is worthless?

If they were co-owners, they would certainly share in this burden. More abstractly, workers more often than not take the brunt of the suffering in failed enterprises. Just look at what happens to the average CEO of a failed company versus its workers.

This article is about wealth creation. Your comment just testifies to that (perceived) problem.

Well, I think there might be a point in a bunch of hotels/hotel chains to start a web booking co-op to get rid of the rentseeking rates of the current crop of booking sites. I mean, technology behind a booking site can't cost that many percentage points from a night's price.

What's the point in investing in a company, if you can't get rid of the senior management at any time? Note that employees have also invested in a company they work for.

Perhaps if you are valuable and don't make mistakes, you wont get voted out in the first place :)