Using a market-based mechanism in an enviroment where the important decisions are market-based is easier then introducing a market based mechanism in an enviroment where most decisions are not.
If you introduce a market-based mechanism around COVID-19 you get a result where rich members in the house can take more risk then the poorer ones which goes against assumptions of equality between house members (and most group houses work on assumptions of equality).
Personally, I don’t really feel the force of this argument—I feel like on either side I get a good deal (on the rich side, I get to do more things, on the poor side, I get paid more money than I would pay to avoid the risk). I agree other people feel the force of this though, and I don’t really know why.
(But like, also, shouldn’t this apply to carbon taxes or all the other economic arguments that civilization is “insane” for not doing?)
(Also also, don’t we already see e.g. rich members getting larger, nicer rooms than poorer members? What’s the difference?)
(Chores are different in that they aren’t a very big deal. If they are a big deal to you, then you hire a cleaner. If they’re not a big enough deal that you’d hire a cleaner, then they’re not a big enough deal to bother with a market, which does have transaction costs.)
As a single data point, the COVID tax didn’t create conflict in my group house (despite having non-trivial income inequality, and one of the richer housemates indeed taking on more risk than others), though admittedly my house is slightly more market-transaction-y than most.
Using a market-based mechanism in an enviroment where the important decisions are market-based is easier then introducing a market based mechanism in an enviroment where most decisions are not.
If you introduce a market-based mechanism around COVID-19 you get a result where rich members in the house can take more risk then the poorer ones which goes against assumptions of equality between house members (and most group houses work on assumptions of equality).
Personally, I don’t really feel the force of this argument—I feel like on either side I get a good deal (on the rich side, I get to do more things, on the poor side, I get paid more money than I would pay to avoid the risk). I agree other people feel the force of this though, and I don’t really know why.
(But like, also, shouldn’t this apply to carbon taxes or all the other economic arguments that civilization is “insane” for not doing?)
(Also also, don’t we already see e.g. rich members getting larger, nicer rooms than poorer members? What’s the difference?)
(Chores are different in that they aren’t a very big deal. If they are a big deal to you, then you hire a cleaner. If they’re not a big enough deal that you’d hire a cleaner, then they’re not a big enough deal to bother with a market, which does have transaction costs.)
As a single data point, the COVID tax didn’t create conflict in my group house (despite having non-trivial income inequality, and one of the richer housemates indeed taking on more risk than others), though admittedly my house is slightly more market-transaction-y than most.