Are you telling me that one of American capitalism's peaks is basically a worker collective?
Jane Street shares and profits are proportional to the capital you invest/accumulate.
How do you quantify, or even loosely, determine that?
What about ancillary workers who might not add any significant value to the (e.g. office janitor or HR) but supposing there’s a serious janitor or HR shortage then the org will still have to pay enough to attract someone, but what they pay is outside of their control and unrelated to the actual value to the company. And even in a worker-owned cooperative there’s still going to be in-groups and out-groups, and the in-group is incentivised to pay the out-group as little as possible as to maximise their own returns.
In my books share ownership can be unequal, so long as the bottom rung still have a few shares each.
EDIT: I'm not going to do this work for you and dig through all the places cited at the bottom to see if there's some source with that credible authority that proposes such a definition.
commodities trading houses tend to follow this model too though that is changing a bit.
i remember having this discussion with a friend after he sent me a richard wolff video. nothing about our system stops coops from flourishing. one of my favorite retailers, REI, is a member-owned co-op. publix, the beloved florida grocer, is employee-owned.
Finance tends to pay its workers better than shareholders—most banks’ trading and IB groups pay out more than 50% of profits to workers.
Where it goes wrong is when the regulator fails to stop foul play…