You seem to be a little confused about the nature of profit. If investors didn't expect to take out future profits then they obviously wouldn't put in the capital necessary to start the enterprise in the first place.
A lot of the value in government services tends to be extracted by public employee unions. Politicians make excessive commitments around wages, pensions, and job security in order to buy union votes and maintain labor peace. Then the politicians move on and future taxpayers are left holding the bag.
I'm afraid you're the one that's confused. Profit is defined economically as revenue minus expenses, and so the grandfather post's first sentence is correct.
What grandfather is suggesting is something like an ESOP, co-op, or etc. There are a long history of these kinds of organizations, and they thrive in free-market economies--unfortunately, nobody really lives in one of those anymore.
It is telling that you say public employee unions "extract value" by demanding the pensions/job protections that should by rights belong to everyone (and often did, in the past). Conversely, private corporations "extract value" from the labor marker by struggling to provide any job security, any retirement, or even anything resembling a living wage.
Just which sector is failing to be profitable, here?
You're welcome to start an employee owned co-op and build homes or whatever. It's completely legal and no one will stop you. There's nothing in our economic system that prevents them from working, but in practice they usually fail due to poor internal decision making. So I don't understand what you're complaining about or what point you're trying to make.
A lot of the value in government services tends to be extracted by public employee unions. Politicians make excessive commitments around wages, pensions, and job security in order to buy union votes and maintain labor peace. Then the politicians move on and future taxpayers are left holding the bag.