2000 Calories: Management

It is a logical fallacy to present people with an artificial either/or fork. It is usually done to mislead people into making a choice that is optimal for the person presenting the choice and is sub-optimal for the person making that choice.

It is a fallacy that I am about to commit in the interest of making my point more compact.

What does not work...

Socialism does not work. Socialism's main fault is that it removes all incentive to work, to be efficient, to invent.

Plantations do not work. The plantation mode is virtually identical to socialism but it does not even pretend to have the surfs' serfs'interest in mind.

What does work...

Feudalism worked for a very long time and is a viable foundation for our scenario.

Corporations work. Partnerships can work.

Consider a four unit fiefdom. You and your lovely are the Lord and Lady of the Manor but you are a WORKING Lord.

You have three young families who have been given a long-term lease to garden to work and certain rights (foraging, hunting, wood-cutting, grazing) to the "commons". Conceivable all four garden plots are strips (you get one too) that are adjacent to each other. Your's is the farthest from the house so you walk the farthest but that gives you a great opportunity to observe the other three strips.

By making them strips, some tasks like planting the red clover seed are more efficient. Cultivation is also more efficient if some crops have wider rows and others are planted more closely together as the tiller can run across the strips if everybody plants there potatoes (for instance) in the same part of the strip.

The L&L or Corporation or Firm levies a tax on the lease holders. For the sake of argument, let's say it is 25% of the corn, 10% of the potatoes and 25% of the apples. The Corporation can use those tax revenues to trade for chicks or ducklings, seeds, fertilizer or to charity. The Corporation can pay-in-kind to have the apples processed into cider and so on.

Everything in excess of the taxes and what is consumed by the family-shareholder is theirs for the family to trade to most advantage. If they have an abundance of corn, they can trade to start their own flock of egg layers. If their row in the orchard produces a super-abundance of apples they can get an extra share of apple cider and open a tavern.

If a family has poor luck at gardening or are lazy, then they better plan on cutting wood or hiring themselves out to trade/purchase food.

If they steal food, then their entire family is expelled from the fief.

Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Motivation

Being motivated and being de-motivated are NOT opposite ends of the spectrum in spite of what the words imply.

People are motivated by discrete, identifiable accomplishments. For example, "I grew 10 bushels of corn on X square-feet of garden". Corporate ownership co-mingles results and dilutes that motivator.

People are motivated by recognition. And you need something discrete to "recognize". Fall Fairs are a great motivational tool because they recognize the people who chose to not be slackers.

People are motivated by intrinsic qualities of the work itself. Some people like sitting in the woods and outwitting game. Some people find joy in turning out a perfect loaf of bread. Other people find great satisfaction at looking a rows and shelves of canned produce. 

The good manager will allow their lease-holders to trade tasks between themselves because it turbo-charges this motivational element. There are also efficiencies in having one person bake all of the bread because the oven only need be heated up once.

Things that demotivate people are:

• Inequities in how rewards are doled out
• Dirty environment
• Unsafe environment
• Unpleasant people
• Cold, hungry, hot, thirsty, dusty....

Fixing those issues means that the workers will not be demotivated BUT it does not mean they will be motivated.

The feudal model outlined above avoids the biggest demotivator that you can control: inequities in how rewards are doled out.

If they grew it, it is theirs (less the tax extracted for the common weal).

If it is not possible to parcel out garden spots with equal fertility, then adjustments can be made in the number of square-feet allotted so the production potential is as close to identical as human judgement can achieve.

Why so much focus on "motivation"?

Motivated people can make a concrete balloon fly.

You will not have to micro-manage. The family units will be self-organizing, productive and not sullen.

Trouble in paradise

Suzy Shitstirrer creates a major problem in terms of "inequality in rewards". Let's say she is able to slither into the life-boat and does not have a husband.

Picture her wanting it to be warmer than the 55 degrees that everybody else agreed to. She did not bring any wood in from the woods. She did not buck it to 16" with a hand saw or split it to burnable size. Her husband did not risk life-and-limb harvesting wood (no exaggeration, wood cutting is inherently dangerous). It costs her NOTHING to throw a couple more logs on the fire when she thinks nobody is watching.

If challenged she will give some lame excuse like "Warm clothes make my skin itch."

If you point out that everybody else wears underclothing so the scratchy clothing does not contact their skin, Suzy Shitstirrer will say "I don't think I should have to do that. There is PLENTY of wood here".

Don't let her in!!!

2000 Calories: Kitchens