> This is only true when you're defining success as a binary "does this company still exist." Worker-owned companies are significantly less likely to expand
Why would that be a criteria of “success”, though? A worker owned business capable of supporting all its employees and maintaining itself long term is definitionally a success.
The notion that everything has to expand is a product of our investor-driven economy. I think it's unhealthy. I'd much rather have a million local business than one giant megacorp.
The existence of a few restaurant co-ops doesn't preclude the existence of a soulless megacorp like McDonald's. If your goal is to give more people a fair wage, it's much more effective to expand as much as possible.
When talking about the model itself, success could be defined as the proportion of business operating under that model. If the model is successful for all parties involved, it would be logical that more and more restaurant move to a co-op system.
