That's perfectly fine, and also the reason why cooperatives are a pretty niche thing: they don't prioritize growth.
if this funding comes from the gov't, then you're just forcing taxpayers to subsidize a less profitable funding mechanism. It's merely a wealth transfer (from taxpayers to these coop owners).
People who claim funding co-ops is a "wealth transfer" ignore existing policies which already funnel taxpayer money upward. Redirecting a fraction of subsidies like bailouts and fossil fuel breaks and the endless war machine... instead to worker owned models that reinvest profits locally and tie wealth to labor... that isn’t a new transfer but a correction. Co-ops reduce reliance on exploitative private equity (e.g., hedge funds buying 40% of U.S. rental homes) and ensure economic gains stay with the people generating value.
I have the controversial opinion that people who work should get money, not the people who don't work.
and they do.
> not the people who don't work
and they don't. With the exception of some basic welfare payments, which i am not opposed to, what you mentioned is what currently happens.
But you're unilaterally classifying capital as not being work would be wrong. Capital is solidified work from previous/earlier times, but unconsumed and saved.
They're not talking about people who "don't work," and collect welfare.
You need to be cancer or a public corporation to think growth is the most important thing.
Most companies make decisions based on a list of priorities: they care about their shareholders/investors first, upper management second (upper management is usually bribed by the investors with equity, aligning their interests with the shareholders, so this is maybe a distinction without a difference), rank-and-file employees third, customers fourth, and anyone not involved with the company last.
The point of a cooperative is to flip this incentive structure on its head: the customers or workers are owners, so they get prioritized. The purpose of the company isn't to dominate the markets and become the biggest company ever, it's to make a better life for the people working for and patronizing the company, instead of just the people who own it.
> As an employee, I would prefer to work at a company where my equity does not have these restrictions placed on it.
Well obviously, if you're talking about equity in a company as something you can own and profit from without ongoing labor, you are definitionally a capitalist and you will be opposed to cooperatives.
> I would be very uneasy about investing anyone's retirement savings into such an organization.
The primary purpose of a cooperative is not to make profits for passive investors. This is like judging a fish on its ability to climb a tree.