No. For example, an employee-owned tobacco company would still be responsible for the third leading cause of death to Americans, thirty years later.
Who owns the “cap-table” does not necessarily positively affect the socio-economic value of a company. And since the majority of shares and voting rights tied to those shares are owned by founders, key personnel, and (even) investors, having an extended pool of shares available to employees is a nice gesture unlikely to assign any meaningful voting power, assuming those shares are also tied to voting power — not a foregone conclusion.
Coops generally assign more voting rights to co-owners with specific articles of incorporation, but I would not suggest running a company using an implied democracy. A consensus is not a great foundation from which to initiate the periodic renewal needed to ensure the company stays on top of its game and continues to serve the needs of shareholders.
On the next topic of your question, inequality is a fact of life and will never disappear, nor should it, for the strength of evolution depends on harvesting the value of differences, not on the regurgitation of commonalities. Everyone looks, acts, and behaves differently, and to assign a “common core” as the benchmark for humanity is the opposite of how we should value ourselves. The latter would deflate the fractal of human evolution.
We must develop a new normal for humanity, with an operating-system to mimic the rules of nature. A system that appreciates our differences over our commonalities and employs a relativity theory of evolutionary merit that can encircle the world. We can, and I have invented such a system.
