4 ms·
The big trick is to respect the people you live with, to have empathy for them, and most importantly to realize that in the long-term you are going to be a lot
by thwarted 13y ago
The big trick is to respect the people you live with, to have empathy for them, and most importantly to realize that in the long-term you are going to be a lot better off if you adopt a policy of "I'll fix this as soon as I find an issue". That works especially because it keeps things from building to a point where they get to be an issue.
And if an incompatibility is found/uncovered in this regard, the deal/relationship should be broken off (either the non-respecting/dysfunctional roommate is asked to leave, or the functional one chooses to leave). That's the only solution for Tragedy of the Commons, and roommates are one of the few cases where something can actually be done about Tragedy of the Commons.
While it's often considered "fair" to split everything equally, I've found it useful to, for example, have one person's name on the lease and it's their place and can kick anyone out (if the landlord/lease is agreeable to that, depends on income and the rental market, really). For the same reasons outlined elsetimes on HN about how to split stock and voting rights between founders -- it's useful to have one place where the buck stops so as not to get bogged down in not being able to break a tie. If there's only one person's name on the lease, things are a lot easier (and often faster) to deal with when the relationship goes sour, for whatever reason.
- hobs 13y agoI really like that last bit, I honestly dislike the resentment that builds in these types of situations, especially because good friends can come out hating each other. Having one person who is the tyrannical dictator for life is a good pick imo.
- thwarted 13y agoI won't enumerate all the details why having one person have at least 51% voting power is valuable, because the writeups about stock shares does it better justice, but I will say that I think it's naive to think "we're best friends, that will never happen to us". At least one of the parties needs to be a big enough person to quickly recognize and change a relationship that is going downhill, because if the relationship is important, the current bad situation will lead to that resentment buildup, often times completely destroying any hope for a reconciliation. "We can't live together, so we don't" is a more useful state to be in than "We're friends, we should be able to live together."