4 ms·

In the case of a small community, it can be left to volunteers (optionally offer them a meal/beer) or simply rotation so everyone does the unwanted jobs. It's a

by bserge 5y ago

In the case of a small community, it can be left to volunteers (optionally offer them a meal/beer) or simply rotation so everyone does the unwanted jobs. It's a fair system and people will do it.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Every office, multi-tenant household and often times families themselves fight over this. People will not do tasks merely because it's "fair". Otherwise crime would have evaporated, life would be harmonious, and judges would be bored.
- bserge 5y ago
  Well, then it's back to violence. Truly the ultimate force.
- boomlinde 5y ago
  On the other hand I think being bunced up with people I don't know, don't really care about or outright dislike is, at least to some extent, a side effect of the extreme centralization of work opportunities since the industrial revolution. Functionally, in terms of production, apartment complexes and offices are to people what coops are to chickens.
AussieWog93 5y ago
Practically, that doesn't work. Some people will do a half-arsed, terrible job and it's better for the community that they stay out of the way and contribute otherwise.
stevejb 5y ago
> simply rotation so everyone does the unwanted jobs. It's a fair system and people will do it. I think that what would end up happening is that in even in a small group of people, it would naturally emerge that there are variations in quality, efficient, economies of scale, etc. Even in my immediate family, there are some menial jobs that my wife does 90-100% of and some menial jobs that I do 90-100% of. If we tried to make if 50-50 or have some type of rotation, we would both lose.
- boomlinde 5y ago
  > If we tried to make if 50-50 or have some type of rotation, we would both lose. Because you recognize this and aren't completely inflexible, you don't. Some degree of self-organization for mutual convenience can be relied on in much larger groups of people than two. For example, I often hear of shift workers trading shifts.

by bserge 5y ago

In the case of a small community, it can be left to volunteers (optionally offer them a meal/beer) or simply rotation so everyone does the unwanted jobs. It's a fair system and people will do it.

vorpalhex 5y ago

Every office, multi-tenant household and often times families themselves fight over this. People will not do tasks merely because it's "fair". Otherwise crime would have evaporated, life would be harmonious, and judges would be bored.

bserge 5y ago
Well, then it's back to violence. Truly the ultimate force.
boomlinde 5y ago
On the other hand I think being bunced up with people I don't know, don't really care about or outright dislike is, at least to some extent, a side effect of the extreme centralization of work opportunities since the industrial revolution. Functionally, in terms of production, apartment complexes and offices are to people what coops are to chickens.

AussieWog93 5y ago

Practically, that doesn't work. Some people will do a half-arsed, terrible job and it's better for the community that they stay out of the way and contribute otherwise.

stevejb 5y ago

> simply rotation so everyone does the unwanted jobs. It's a fair system and people will do it. I think that what would end up happening is that in even in a small group of people, it would naturally emerge that there are variations in quality, efficient, economies of scale, etc. Even in my immediate family, there are some menial jobs that my wife does 90-100% of and some menial jobs that I do 90-100% of. If we tried to make if 50-50 or have some type of rotation, we would both lose.

boomlinde 5y ago
> If we tried to make if 50-50 or have some type of rotation, we would both lose. Because you recognize this and aren't completely inflexible, you don't. Some degree of self-organization for mutual convenience can be relied on in much larger groups of people than two. For example, I often hear of shift workers trading shifts.