Many startups start from someone’s living room. LessWrong was built in the Event Horizon living room. This was great, I don’t think it hurt anyone, and it also helped the organization survive through the pandemic, which I think was quite good.
I’m glad this went well for LessWrong! Sometimes, however, people discover their beloved roommate is a very bad coworker and it leads to a major blowup. I think this should be treated similarly to family business ventures: you and your brother or you and your spouse might work phenomenally together professionally, or it might destroy your family and end your marriage.
Another important distinction here might be the difference between a stable living situation predating a new shared project vs. an existing organization’s staff deciding to live together or pressuring new employees to live with other employees.
Either way, I think there is a risk that a discussion about an important campaign strategy turns into an argument about whose turn it is to wash the dishes.
I also find this kind of dicey, though at least in Lightcone’s case I think it’s definitely worth it, and I know of many other cases where it seems likely worth it. We own a large event venue, and we are currently offering one employee free housing in exchange for being on-call for things that happen in the night. This seems like a fair trade to me and very standard (one of the sections of our hotel is indeed explicitly zoned as a “care-taker unit” for this exact purpose).
I previously worked in a professional space where living onsite was an extremely common part of the job. Sometimes, it was great! Other times, it was horrible! Among the issues: hesitation to quit because it would mean lost housing, difficulty establishing work-life balance, invasion of privacy, decreased sense of agency and increased sense of reliance on and control by the employer, and many more.
This seems really quite a lot too micromanagey to me. I agree that there should be COI mechanisms in place, but this seems like it’s really trying to enforce norms on parts of people’s lives that really are their business.
I think this is a weird one for an employer/organization to try to enforce. But I think on an individual level thinking “how important is it for me to date this person my partner directly funds?” or “maybe my coworker should review my metamour’s grant application instead of me” makes a lot of sense.
To respond to the other points:
I’m glad this went well for LessWrong! Sometimes, however, people discover their beloved roommate is a very bad coworker and it leads to a major blowup. I think this should be treated similarly to family business ventures: you and your brother or you and your spouse might work phenomenally together professionally, or it might destroy your family and end your marriage.
Another important distinction here might be the difference between a stable living situation predating a new shared project vs. an existing organization’s staff deciding to live together or pressuring new employees to live with other employees.
Either way, I think there is a risk that a discussion about an important campaign strategy turns into an argument about whose turn it is to wash the dishes.
I previously worked in a professional space where living onsite was an extremely common part of the job. Sometimes, it was great! Other times, it was horrible! Among the issues: hesitation to quit because it would mean lost housing, difficulty establishing work-life balance, invasion of privacy, decreased sense of agency and increased sense of reliance on and control by the employer, and many more.
I think this is a weird one for an employer/organization to try to enforce. But I think on an individual level thinking “how important is it for me to date this person my partner directly funds?” or “maybe my coworker should review my metamour’s grant application instead of me” makes a lot of sense.