Hacker News Reader

Comment by Paul-ish | Hacker News Reader

Why aren't more businesses run as coops owned by either the workers or the customers?

I've been a member of the Park Slope Food Coop for about a year. We have 16,000 co-owners, do about $50MM / year in revenue; and have the freshest, most local and affordable food in NYC.

You have to work 2:45 hour per month (I do childcare), and we have monthly GA meetings to vote on things.

We also have a fund / capital, training, and even labor available for others who want to start cooperative grocery stores in their area.

Because that means less money for the people on top. Most people don't start a business out of altruism.

...but I thought most entrepreneurs wanted to "change the world" with "revolutionary" businesses?

Haha. That's the "get everyone to look in the same direction, aren't we a lovely family, infesting a take more ownership than you take shares" story that private business tells. In the end the ones making equity investments in the business walk away with the surplus (both in profit and in valuation). :)

I think coops are more suitable for that "change the world" while being "revolutionary" story. In fact many anarchists (and market socialists, and mutualists) envision a big coop sector to democratize work life. I think it's pretty revolutionary in that way. Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin promote these ideas.

It definitely surprises me that with all the talk of "following your passion" and "changing the world", we see pretty much 0 innovation in HOW a company works/is owned/etc. Instead all innovation is focused at the product level.

I don't think there's anything wrong with caring about money, in fact I think it's a mistake not to care about money in a system that revolves around money. However, listening to people tell me how "passionate they are about 'X'" when in reality they are only passionate about making money is one my biggest pet peeves.

I would imagine it comes down to having the initial capital to start such a venture. Those with the capital retain ownership and reap the future returns.

If there was a way coops could raise significant funds to start say a big box chain store, we might see more of them. I don't think small business loans quite cut it here.

If this is true, I wonder if this is inherent in the way markets work, or a result of the way we (government, society, whatever) have structured things.

I think it's inherent in the way markets work, or more specifically, how people operate in a mostly free market.

On the one hand, the market remains this way where people with money are more easily able to make large sums of money through investment, by making their money do the work. The system in this sense is self-perpetuating, but strictly speaking, doesn't have to be this way.

On the other hand, as a thought experiment, imagine a magic wand was waved and all capital and resources were evenly distributed across the national or even global population. The world would still be left with an inequality of people's ability to earn each others money. Those with good health, savvy business sense, in-demand skills, and knowledge of production would quickly start down the path of quickly earning, while others are left only spending. I don't think it would take very long to end up right back where we are today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com