How to allocate chores and rent

Introduction
For a (hopefully refreshing) change of pace, this post has absolutely nothing to do with politics.  Instead, it is about how to allocate chores and rent between roommates.

Let's say you live with 3 other people.  All of you move in to a 4-bedroom apartment at the same time, and all of you are on the lease.  You pay the same amount, use utilities the same, and eat the same.  You can add in whatever considerations you want to make all of you absolutely equal with respect to each other, how much space you have, and how much you monetarily contribute.  (For present purposes, let's also say that you all agree on how many chores should be done, how well they should be done, and on what schedule.)

The basics
Default rules
Now, how do you allocate chores?  I think one important distinction is who causes the need for a chore to spring into being, and one way to think about that is "passive" chores versus "caused" chores (my terms).  Passive chores happen no matter what any one roommate does, and they often happen periodically.  Dusting, vacuuming  sweeping; taking the trash out; changing light bulbs, contacting the landlord for other maintenance, purchasing shared apartment groceries like paper towels and toilet paper; paying bills; spring cleaning (windows, baseboards, fans, etc.);  If you rent a house, you also have outside chores like weeding, edging, mowing, etc.

For passive chores, it seems like the rule of thumb should be to evenly split them.  Put the most efficient person for each chore on that chore, then split the total up by time taken.

For active chores, if one person caused the chore to have to exist (I need to eat, so I have to make food), and if that person received the sole benefit of the activity, whatever chore is created is the responsibility of that person.

For active chores that have multi-person components, the work should be split evenly.  Many times, this will be around the purchase, preparation, consumption, and cleaning up of food.  This needs to be split evenly based on whomever is involved.  It took me 10 minutes to buy the food (we split the costs), Joe 25 minutes to cook it, and Rita 10 minutes to do the dishes; we all ate.  That was a 45 minute job, 15 minutes per person, so Rita and I each owe Joe 5 minutes.

Changing by agreement
How to make changes to this default rule is changeable by agreement.  I'm allergic to dust, and you're allergic to grass, so ... I will do the mowing if you do the dusting.  Or whatever.  As long as everyone agrees to it, the agreement overrides the chore allocation.  Everything else below is subject to the caveat that the default rules can always be changed by agreement.

One frequent way to change by agreement is to make specific people responsible for specific things.  I always do the shopping, Joe always does the cooking, Rita always does the cleaning.  That is often an excellent way to do things, but the agreements have to be clear -- what if Joe always gets us to buy pizza so he doesn't have to cook?  How quickly does Rita have to clean up?  What if I won't buy the food Joe wants?

Complicating things
Who's on the lease/mortgage
If some people are on the lease or mortgage, and others are not, that complicates matters.  Those people are the ones who used their credit to get the abode, and they are the ones who will be on the hook if something goes wrong.  They are the "owners" or the "tenants" as far as legal rights and responsibilities are concerned (to paint with an overly wide brush), so ... what they want matters.

In general, they get to set the rules.  Which chores are done, how frequently, to what extent.  The hours and times they are done.  You name it, they get to set the rules.  The above "default rules" discussion was to set a sort of fairness bar, but owners do not have to be fair.  They bought the place precisely because they wanted to set their own rules.

Seniority
Agreements can be changed based on mutual consent.  Whenever a new person moves in, he is -- either implicitly or explicitly -- agreeing to be bound by the agreements that previously existed.  That means that seniority matters only to the extent that the agreement on specific rules happened when the senior roomies had an opportunity to weigh in.

Rent/mortgage/utility/other payments
It's the Golden Rule: whoever has the gold, rules.  If you pay for everything, you get to make the rules.  This is more of a "fairness" rule than a legal one, but often these will be the same.  If someone pays significantly less, for some reason, that person gets significantly less say in what the rules are.  If they were paying that much, would they let the people not paying make the rules?

Quality and quantity of space taken
How much should be paid should partially be a function of the quality and quantity of space taken.  If there is a master suite with an en suite bathroom, all things considered, that person should probably pay more for the space.  If someone is living in, say, an open formal dining room, that person should have to pay less.

Adding extra people
Everyone should definitely have to agree before an extra person is added.  Frequently the way this happens in somebody brings in a boyfriend or girlfriend to share the space.  How should the allocations change?

• Utilties: Another person should have to pay the fair share.  If there were 4 people before, now the utilities should be split evenly to all 5.
• Chores: Same deal -- chores should be allocated on a per person basis (not per room or couple).
• Rent: Slightly different.  Assuming rent is separated from utilities, rent should mainly be a function of quality and quantity of space.  If someone's boyfriend moves in, the space allocations do not change.

However--and this is a big "however"--, other aspects of the unit do change.  If an abode suddenly becomes co-ed, people's comfort in how they walk around changes.  Another person sharing a bathroom can be a big deal.  More people in the living room can mean people don't get to sit where they want, etc.  Adding a new person is an inconvenience to everyone else, and it is certainly reasonable to expect that inconvenience to be at least partially reflected in the rent.  That should be part of the discussion when deciding whether to let a new person stay.

Guests
Guests are the responsibility of whomever invited them. See the "active" chores section above.  If the guests consume resources, it should be as if the inviter consumed the resource.  If the guest stayed for an extended period (measured in, say, weeks), maybe utility payments, etc., need to be reconsidered.

Payment
Money is obviously one type of payment, and it is extremely important because it is, by far, the main currency used outside the abode.  Inside, however, there may be other types of payment, most especially including performing extra chores. The goal should be to zero out the ledger for everyone on a periodic basis, probably by the time rent is due.

Other relationships
If there is a couple in the scenario, if she has him do all the housework while she pays all the bills, that should be fine -- as long as they are, somehow, doing everything required of them, it doesn't matter if they "subcontracted" it to another roomie.

Other relations are also immaterial -- two cousins, siblings, parent/child, friends since birth, whatever.  You can agree to do something else because, for instance, you think your live-in mom shouldn't have to do as much, but that is not the default, and you shouldn't expect others to assume it will be.

Conclusion
Living with people is not always easy.  We usually take on roommates because we need help paying for the space that we live in -- if we enjoy their company, so much the better.  In my experience, most roommate arguments develop because (a) there is not a true agreement between the roommates, (b) they have different ideas about how the living quarters should be kept, and (c) sometimes people don't pay their rent, yet they want to behave as if they still have the same rights and privileges.

What are your thoughts?