> (a) they find it hard to raise capital (b) they tend to make decisions that maximize worker welfare rather than profit
at the end a company needs to be financially successful and for this it needs to provide competitive products and services. Otherwise, they'll just be replaced.
There of course may be a chance they'll get replaced by another employee owned company, but the odds of a free-capital owned company replacing them are probably bigger as they have more freedom to make the right decisions to become successful.
Also imagine your pension would just depend on the odds of the company you have been working for a live long, because you just cannot invest into other companies because they are only owned by employees.
My pension depends on other members of my country, as well as they depend on my. The feeling of safeness (event if it’s not 100% safe) and bound is what I call “society“, meaning we go forward together very much like what most feel with their family. Never ever will I live in a country that encourage people to compete instead of collaborate, it sounds better for the 1% stakeholders but not for the 99% others.
I wish it were that simple... even if everyone tried to "collaborate" to produce the same product, there would still be some competition somewhere, at least for ideas. somehow the final products to be made need to be decided upon and the other won't be made. That also means, that somehow the people overseeing the final products have more power than the ones that were not chosen by whatever process is in place to make those decisions...
It really has not been proven, that there is a more effective organisational form for this competition better than capital allocation using markets with a lot of freedom.
For your case or "cross-generational" pensions where the young pay for the pensions of the old: That worked well while the baby boomers were working. This may go sour when the baby boomers retire and the numbers of their first and second generation of offspring decline... Even worse: if they have made the economy, tax and debt burden for those offspring so bad, they can barely buy their own home.
at the end a company needs to be financially successful and for this it needs to provide competitive products and services. Otherwise, they'll just be replaced.
There of course may be a chance they'll get replaced by another employee owned company, but the odds of a free-capital owned company replacing them are probably bigger as they have more freedom to make the right decisions to become successful.
Also imagine your pension would just depend on the odds of the company you have been working for a live long, because you just cannot invest into other companies because they are only owned by employees.