Google and Goldman have no trouble hiring.
So from a statistical perspective you can say that paying well means they have a lot of people to choose from. But some types of mission are greatly affected by the few particular people who are really specialised or inspired in some area or another, and those people aren't always willing to give up their personal dreams to work for an unattractive company just for a larger pay packet.
It cannot talk about everyone, because there are many different kinds of people and work sectors. I'd expect the motivational priorities to exist on a continuum, on which some people are more motivated by money than others. Also, the "adequate compensation" varies from person to person; some are happy with some level, some are never happy.
I mean, I find it extremely hard to believe that things like, say, "respect from co-workers" and "interesting work tasks" would factor in as the primary source of motivation for e.g. anyone working a low-paying job and living from paycheck to paycheck, regardless of who exactly (worker, employer, state, someone else) thinks the compensation is adequate. In contrast, for someone who already possesses a hefty surplus of money, obtaining more money probably plays a smaller role in the overall motivation.
However, none of this means that it's generalizeable to say all working people are not primarily motivated by money (or are primarily motivated, for that matter). One could just as well argue the opposite: (for some people) money turns out to be really high on the list of things which motivates them. Whichever way, it still is weird to claim this as an absolute, applying to everyone.
To put this into a more concrete context: a C-suite executive of a Fortune 500 company might say "money is not my primary motivation, energizing coffee machine discussions, personal fulfillment, yada yada" -- they already are on a level with plenty of material wealth and opportunities for recreation. In contrast, a single parent sanitary worker is unlikely to claim motivation comes from "I'm energized by the interesting work tasks" or something else than money; certainly they are motivated by being able to pay rent and buy food for their children and would rather have more money than less.
Of course if you don't have enough to live by, the main goal is going to be to earn more or just to survive
Past that, more money helps remove day-to-day problems in life, at various levels. But it becomes less important than other factors like having a healthy and meaningful life. I think it's assumed that the generalization applies to that level.
For C-suites I imagine money is more of a symbol for power and prestige, though I know little about it.
And yes, everybody is unique and all that, but also probably not as special as they like to think. Social research is never generalizable to a point where you can say: all people are like this or that, nor does it have to be to make an interesting point. I also didn't qualify the statement in that way, because I don't know the numbers by heart. But I remember reading from the actual research that there was a large difference in what motivates people (it was not equal as you seem the suggest) and salary was quite low on the list.
Some people will be perfectly happy working in a team with manager shielding them from most of the office politics vs pretty much having to take part in politics in coop
If FAANGs* remove themselves from the equation due to hiring freezes or redundancies a lot of people will be left earning below FAANG pay in a non co-operative environment.
It is proposing joining a co-operative as a possible alternative to that.
That, and it's not always about the money. It's surprisingly rewarding working outside of monetisation of attention.
*Or whatever the latest acronym is
In tech though, money is not the main unique value proposition and I would suggest getting curious about investing in happiness[1] so one can increase it's baselines[2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNZk-N6uDcg [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTGGyQS1fZE
I will not voluntarily go back to a bad work culture, nor just be a free volunteer somewhere, and this co-op idea sounds very interesting now.
If it can pay even merely acceptable, then it would not be wasting time to have been doing that all the time, if the sales pitch is at all true.
I never chose to work in the huge shitty company, I was working in a small but continuously successful company that was sold to the big company. For 20 years I was perfectly happy making good but not faang money, and I would have loved to just keep doing that forever. (and the big company didn't even pay well, my money came from being a part owner and got part of the sale price)
There is always a chance to find a good fit and a good culture like that by specifically looking for smaller normal companies I suppose, but it seems to be uncommon. I think I just had a rare good gig.
But my rambling repetative point again is just that it's not wasting time to make a bit less such that you do have to keep working at something useful, because now that I don't have to, I want to. The daily life does matter more than the cash, even if the cash gets to the point where you don't have to work at all. I had a good daily life and a good sense of worth and purpose, since the company did upstanding boring but necessary and useful to society back end work not just any scammy way to extract cash from some process, and my part of that work was interesting, required me to be good and clever and thoughtful, and was appreciated and respected.
I don't have to suffer the bad parts of work, but I also no longer have the good parts of work, and even working on open source projects doesn't replace it.
Maybe this co-op idea is a way that more people can have that ideal life I had instead of just me being very lucky. I'm interested in it now let alone as my 25-years-ago self who just needs a job.
As an employee, you are at the whims of your employers when it comes to something as important as the way you're able to support yourself and your family.