In a lot of ways, that's worse. If it were just the politicians, we could vote them out.
We can't vote out the people. The people are angry, at each other, in ways disproportionate to the nuance and compromise. It becomes self-reinforcing.
I'll be blunt that I think some people are more at fault than others. But I don't know how to stop that.
I wish it were just the politicians, or even just the media. Then there would be things that I could do. But when the people hate each other -- and I genuinely believe they do -- I can't think of any options.
I think the evidence is that, on the whole (since we’re broadly referring to “people” and obviously there is tremendous diversity contained within), people do not hate each other, they hate the “other” team (whatever that may be). We’re wired for in/out group think to such a high degree that it’s incredibly easy to dial in division and purpose it to some end.
Two individuals in a room are more likely to find common ground than hate until you bring up the right sport they happen to be on opposing teams for.
My answer to that question is that organizing people is much more difficult than everybody thinks and politics is the biggest source of inefficiencies on any human organisation bigger than a few persons. And cooperatives introduce additional political layer.
Easily: there are far more non-employee owned companies than employee owned. Thus this isn’t a preference at all, it’s merely the availability of the market.
Now you could say that entrepreneurs who start companies have a preference for non-employee owned, thus explaining the aforementioned market allotment. Again that’s pretty easy to explain, because of course such an entrepreneur would give up ownership in an employee-owned arrangement. It’s also just the de facto paradigm most are aware of in news cycles and business schools, and is easier to setup and support.