23 ms·
Your methodology is fair from the objective vantage point of the rooms, but not necessarily from the subjective vantage point of the people. Consider the follo
by nkoren 13y ago
Your methodology is fair from the objective vantage point of the rooms, but not necessarily from the subjective vantage point of the people.
Consider the following strawman scenario: Roommate A is earning a million dollars a year, and the other three are student artists, surviving on odd jobs. Would it be "fair" for roommate A to to pay no more than $215 - $135 = $80/month more than the others, when their ability to pay is so much greater?
That's obviously a contrived example, but not too different from my own situation. I'm a consultant / business owner whose income is not extravagant, but is reasonably above the UK mean. I have a flatmate -- who is fact a student artist -- who contributes roughly 20% of the total costs to the household, including utility & council taxes and whatnot. An 80/20 split may sound terribly inequitable, but we're both paying a similar percentage of our earnings for rent, so it's quite equitable from that perspective.
Absent this arrangement, I could still afford to live on my own, but I'd be left with less cash at the end of the month, and my place would seem a bit empty. My flatmate, in turn, could probably only afford to live in some tiny squalid place far from the city centre. If we were to insist on a 50/50 split which is "fair" from the perspective of the space & utilities (rather than from the perspective our respective pocketbooks), then no accommodation could be found: my flatmate could never afford to pay half the rent. But by optimising around a subjectively fair allocation of our personal resources and preferences, I get an excellent flatmate and more spending money, and they get a much nicer place in London than they could otherwise afford. This is a far better outcome for both of us than we could achieve by insisting on an "objectively fair" split.
As for your chores dilemma: just have a basic rule about not leaving one's personal crap in the common areas. Then for the routine tasks (vacuuming, mopping, etc.), collect an extra $5/week from everybody, and use that money to hire a professional cleaner (or if one of the flatmates is short of cash and particularly good at / enthusiastic about cleaning, pay them to do it). Seriously, it's worth it. People have vastly different capabilities and preferences when it comes to cleaning, and trying to make everybody equal in this respect is an un-winnable game. Don't even try.
tl;dr: the less you strive for egalitarianism through uniformity, and the more you accommodate the divergent abilities and subjective viewpoints of your flatmates, the better you'll be able to find win/win scenarios in shared-living situations.
- MAGZine 13y agoYes, it is fair. Is it fair that just because someone has the ability to pay, they ought to pay? If a millionaire was planning to move in, and you said "for you, you pay 100% of rent," then the millionaire would probably just go somewhere else. Afterall, they're probably looking for cheap, since they could surely afford a place to themselves or perhaps even a house (depending on location). Likewise, the students may be "poor," in monetary expense, but one could argue that they are simply spending their money on other things that are important to them, and so why should they get a free ride because of that? In the situations I've been with, I'm fine with (rent/number of renters). the lease holder gets her choice of room, the rest is first come/first serve.
- nkoren 13y agoI think you're missing the point. This is a value-optimisation problem, and 1.) not all value is monetary, and 2.) the perception of value is inherently subjective. That's why optimisations cannot be created via static externally objective criteria, and must be the process of a negotiation, as the NY Times calculator proposes. If the millionaire readily agreed to pay 100% of the rent, then that would be "fair" because clearly in order to make that agreement, they'd have to be receiving some kind of non-monetary benefit from the arrangement. On the other hand, if they walked away from that proposition, then obviously no optimisation has been achieved, which is why a static "the millionaire pays for everything" policy is not a good idea. Instead, the millionaire should return with a counter-offer, and this should continue until parity is achieved. When all the subjective qualitative factors are included, there's no guarantee that it will be at 50/50 (which may not even be a possible solution, as in my example with my flatmate). That's the beauty of the Times' calculator: it allows people to apply whatever personal subjective criteria they like when making their own valuations, and then finds the dynamic equilibrium between these.
- SyncTheory13 13y agoYou're correct, I did miss the point. I viewed the original link on my phone and wasn't seeing where it dived into the value of amenities. :( I may give it a shot someday.