Workers at REI get sub-$12/hr. REI is structurally and technically a co-op. They are just a co-op that does not exhibit the benefits of a co-op that Jacobin would suggest will flow from being a co-op.

If it's structured like a co-op and exhibits none of the benefits of a co-op, what's been gained? I'm saying that co-ops generally have to sacrifice at least one of: structure, functionality, scalability.

REI is a consumer-owned co-op, not a worker-owned one. The entire co-op is designed around saving consumers money, not making the workers more.

So yes, REI does deliver the benefits of a co-op to its owners - high-quality goods at a lower price than they would be unable otherwise be able to get. This is the entire point of a consumer co-op. Workers can also be member-owners of the co-op, and frequently are, but the benefits are geared towards getting better discounts on the goods REI sells. This is in addition to the implicit benefits of being an owner of the company and having a say in its direction.

But the prices aren't actually lower than what can be had elsewhere even with the dividend you get back each year. The primary benefits of REI is how easy it is to return products you don't like or don't have a need for and the fact that you can get a product the same day if you live near one.

So whats the difference between a co-op and a stockholder organization? Is it a stockholder organization with 1 stock unit = 1 member and you can issue stock for each new member?

> If it's structured like a co-op and exhibits none of the benefits of a co-op, what's been gained?

At least you've cut out Wall Street and co.

The definition you just gave for co-op also includes any publicly owned corporation.

The economic or social desire is met for the owners, not for others. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.