We use chore markets! We have a board on the fridge where we log chores as we do them, then settle up every ~10 days, trading off against each other. Since we perceive the burden of chores differently, the “prices” aren’t fixed: we negotiate and adjust them over time. e.g., unloading the dishwasher started at ~1.33x taking out the trash; it’s now ~2x, because the dishwasher needs to be done more frequently (more repetitive = more chore-like) and with more timeliness (more urgent = more chore-like)
Some advantages I’ve observed
Price encodes the standards gap. If you care more about something, you’ll negotiate it higher. The market naturally surfaces who has higher standards for what, without it needing to be a direct conversation about “you’re not doing enough.”
It sidesteps the nagging dynamic. The person with higher standards (me, usually) doesn’t need to convince the other that the chore needs doing. They just log it and it counts.
It’s not perfect since prices are subjective and the accounting relies on good faith. But within our established level of trust, we’ve found it more adaptive than fixed assignments or schedules.
Price encodes the standards gap. If you care more about something, you’ll negotiate it higher. The market naturally surfaces who has higher standards for what, without it needing to be a direct conversation about “you’re not doing enough.”
I don’t understand how this works. It seems to me like if I have high standards for keeping the kitchen floor clean, then someone with lower standards will typically underbid me because keeping it clean to their standards is less work.
Alternatively, if because of my high standards choose to bid lower, to make sure that the task is assigned to me and done to my high standards, then I get less “credit” for the tasks I take on, and soin general I end up doing quite a bit more work.
We use chore markets! We have a board on the fridge where we log chores as we do them, then settle up every ~10 days, trading off against each other. Since we perceive the burden of chores differently, the “prices” aren’t fixed: we negotiate and adjust them over time. e.g., unloading the dishwasher started at ~1.33x taking out the trash; it’s now ~2x, because the dishwasher needs to be done more frequently (more repetitive = more chore-like) and with more timeliness (more urgent = more chore-like)
Some advantages I’ve observed
Price encodes the standards gap. If you care more about something, you’ll negotiate it higher. The market naturally surfaces who has higher standards for what, without it needing to be a direct conversation about “you’re not doing enough.”
It sidesteps the nagging dynamic. The person with higher standards (me, usually) doesn’t need to convince the other that the chore needs doing. They just log it and it counts.
It’s not perfect since prices are subjective and the accounting relies on good faith. But within our established level of trust, we’ve found it more adaptive than fixed assignments or schedules.
I don’t understand how this works. It seems to me like if I have high standards for keeping the kitchen floor clean, then someone with lower standards will typically underbid me because keeping it clean to their standards is less work.
Alternatively, if because of my high standards choose to bid lower, to make sure that the task is assigned to me and done to my high standards, then I get less “credit” for the tasks I take on, and soin general I end up doing quite a bit more work.
I’m curious to potentially replicate this system, can you describe how it works in more detail?