I think you're saying that the core problem we face is that productivity per capita has gotten too high. One cause of increased productivity is that businesses

I think you're saying that the core problem we face is that productivity per capita has gotten too high. One cause of increased productivity is that businesses are incentivized to compress their workforce as much as possible because labor is treated as just another input/cost. Viewed through that lens, an enterprise like a cooperative that actively tries to maintain its workforce is in effect holding productivity (per worker) in check, directly addressing the problem. (That may put cooperatives at an inherent competitive disadvantage in the market. I haven't thought or read enough about that to have a strong outlook. But my gut response is that the challenge of providing a livelihood for your worker-owners is very similar to the challenge of providing a return to investors, and aside from an inability to perform layoffs, a cooperative is free to confront that challenge in the same way as any other business.) Another way to look at it is that the benefits of technological advances would accrue to the worker-owners rather than the investors. So when their jobs get replaced by robots, the worker-owners just work less and share the profit from the robot labor, whereas in an investor-owned enterprise, all the employees are laid off and the investors share the profit. (And eventually there are no consumers for the product of the robots' labor because there's universal unemployment and investor capital is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority, so you have to institute radical redistribution just to be able to continue to have any economy at all.) Of course, the cooperative needs to have enough capital to actually acquire some robots when the time comes, so best start accumulating that capital ASAP.