Worker Cooperatives(pro) versus traditional, capitalist businesses(con)

Now, I have one more main argument I wish to make before I offer rebuttals. Worker Cooperatives could help end povertyAs established above, worke cooperatives generally have higher wages for their workers. If more businesses were worker cooperatives, this would help end the poverty rate for full-time and part-time workers since their wages would be higher. Sadly, 3% of Americans who work full time are in poverty[10] and 16% of Americans working part-time are in poverty[10]. Those who work full-time should never be in poverty, it's sad that there are even any full-time workers who are. If majority or all businesses were cooperatives, this would likely reduce these rates of poverty. Now, I will move onto my rebuttals:Re: Cooperatives lack competitivenessI agree with this notion, as I stated in my main argument, cooperatives are not set up to out-compete other businesses. However, we need to take into account other reasons why cooperatives are so rare. I would argue if the government stopped bailing out traditional businesses, and let them fail, we would likely see people searching for an alternative to the traditional business model. Since this doesn't happen though, I feel people are content with how things are. Bottom line: we need to get the government out of businesses. I would even argue we should end all regulations on business, that way we will see what happens when traditional businesses are allowed to do whatever they want, and we will seek an alternative, such as cooperatives. These things would likely give cooperatives a competitive edge. I also mentioned other reasons why coops are so rare, the other reason being that 89% of Americans haven't heard of them. I would argue that it should be required in all economics classes that students be taught about cooperatives. Can my opponent prove that in this caste society, will we acheive true equality, or will the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor?I don't see how this is a caste society, but moving on... There wouldn't be complete equality of income. I would be opposed to such an idea. It doesn't make sense for someone who works harder, who needed more education for their job than someone else, who has more skills and/or who works longer to be paid the same amount as someone who doesn't do those things. I would say that because private business owners wouldn't exist in this society, and each worker would be earning more income, as shown above how average wage is higher among cooperatives, this would narrow the wealth inequality gap. It wouldn't get rid of it, nor do I consider it a good thing to completely get rid of wealth inequality, as I stated before, but it would be a good thing to narrow it. Are we truly bad people if we want to climb the economic ladder, and create more wealth for ourselves?That in itself isn't wrong, but if you're climbing the economic ladder by piggybacking off of the work of people who work under you, which business owners do, I would say this is wrong. As I stated in my main argument discussing the morality of traditional businesses and cooperatives, the business owner is a tyrant in my opinion. They get to make decisions without regard for their workers. Their workers don't get any say in the matter, and the consent of the governed is lacking under this system. While, yes, you could argue that unions and government regulation would help these issues, why should we waste money, time, and labor on those things when we could just have worker cooperatives replace the traditional businesses and this would solve that issue? Will strict guidlines imposed on production and freedom of privacy, and lack of competition, be inducive of social and economic progress, or stiffle it?I think this got a little off-topic, as I don't see what this has to do with traditional businesses or cooperatives. I don't advocate for strict guidelinesI think my opponent might be thinking I would advocate for government intervention to make cooperatives the only legal business form? Is that why you called this a caste system and made it opposed to "economic freedom"? If that is what you think, I don't think the government should do this. Instead, I would advocate that the government require schools to teach about cooperatives in economics classes, perhaps that banks can't be allowed to discriminate against cooperatives, that the government end many of its regulations, and that the government can't bail out traditional businesses anymore, and just let them fail. I believe with each of these things in place, people would naturally choose to go to cooperatives. If they see how much traditional businesses actually fail, they would seek an alternative that is more reliable(which coops are definitely more reliable as I established before with how their survival rate is much higher). And with people being taught about coops, this would decrease the percenatage(89%) of Americans who don't even know what a coop is. Sources:[10] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu...