Ownership vs Access

I have been wondering lately why we are still so set on owning things.
I read it somewhere in an article that there was a study made about how much we are using our stuff. I don't remember exactly the numbers, but I recall that they were ridiculously low.
If you think of it you can intuit your own numbers.
How much do you use your car? Even if you have a particularly long commute it can't be more that 4 hours a day. That is about 15% of the day. If you figure in the weekends and the vacation times the percentage is even lower. Not to mention vehicles you own for driving or riding fun once or twice a month. RVs that you may use once a year if that. Or clothes for that matter. An average American owns 30 sets of clothes. How much of the time we use them.

So my contention is how about just having access to to the things we need when we need it. I certainly would not work for cell phones, and probably many other items, but could it work for most things we use? With the level of current information technology, it could certainly be doable. In fact ridesharing has been operating on this premise for quite some time.

What do you think? Would you consider access instead of ownership if it was easily available? What are the things you would include in this category and what are the things you definitely want to own. Also why?

I am working on a curriculum on Sustainable Living Practices for an institution called Tranqvillium Sustainable Living Educational and Research Community, and if you have an opinion on this it would be great to hear it.

Also you can read more about the place here: https://tranqvillium.org

Depends on where you are, and what you are doing. In the city, you may have many alternatives to transport. If your car is unavailable, you might have subway or bus or bike or walking. But on a farm, much of life and work is very time critical. You often need big, expensive equipment to plant corn or bring in the hay. And very little choice when you do it. Largely based on weather. You can't share equipment when several folks need to do the same thing at the same time. And, there are just simply many farmers who are lousy at maintenance. If you need to do something "right now", you can't afford to have someone else break what you need. The only way it's going to work to share is if you are a truly communal society, like The Community of Separatists at Zoar, Ohio, in 1817. Sharing everything worked for a while in Zoar, as long as they had a very strong, charismatic, leader. But once he was gone, even Zoar failed.

Taking responsibility of the accessible tool/car is where I see problems would arise. Who do you see maintaining the accessable tool, car, trailer?  I have seen it far too many times a person lends a trailer out and lights or fenders have to be replaced. It is usually not the one who borrowed the trailer fixing it, the owner is fixing it. If they have no knowledge of maintenance knowledge of a particular tool, paint sprayer for example, that tool can realy be screwed up without proper cleaning at the end of use. Just ask a tool rental company a system that is inplace for access v ownership how people treat rental tools. A community tool library sound fantastic but holding someone to responsible use and maintenace would be a nightmare.  Many of the tools I own I purchased because doing it myself and buying the tool was less than hiring someone else to do it. We put wood flooring in our house labor to install was 20.00 a sq foot. A good pneumatic floor nailer with nails 350.00. Did it make sense to pay someone or to buy the tool? Will I ever build another house? Maybe. Tools in the shop an investment.

Portland's yellow bike project, what a great idea, there were a couple of iterations since the initial "Yellow Bikes" . Viable now in PDX probably not.
https://www.oregonlive.com/history/2016/01/portlands_disastrous_yellow_bi.html

Robert Ray wrote:Taking responsibility of the accessible tool/car is where I see problems would arise. Who do you see maintaining the accessable tool, car, trailer?  I have seen it far too many times a person lends a trailer out and lights or fenders have to be replaced. It is usually not the one who borrowed the trailer fixing it, the owner is fixing it. If they have no knowledge of maintenance knowledge of a particular tool, paint sprayer for example, that tool can realy be screwed up without proper cleaning at the end of use. Just ask a tool rental company a system that is inplace for access v ownership how people treat rental tools. A community tool library sound fantastic but holding someone to responsible use and maintenace would be a nightmare.  Many of the tools I own I purchased because doing it myself and buying the tool was less than hiring someone else to do it. We put wood flooring in our house labor to install was 20.00 a sq foot. A good pneumatic floor nailer with nails 350.00. Did it make sense to pay someone or to buy the tool? Will I ever build another house? Maybe. Tools in the shop an investment.

Portland's yellow bike project, what a great idea, there were a couple of iterations since the initial "Yellow Bikes" . Viable now in PDX probably not.
https://www.oregonlive.com/history/2016/01/portlands_disastrous_yellow_bi.html

I think in a small community (up to about 150 people) taking responsibility can very quickly evolve into not being a problem. In places where people personally know each other, they act more responsibly. Probably there would be more problems at the beginning and as people realize that acting irresponsibly can hinder their own access as well, it would improve. Also there has to be a maintenance program of the items in the pool even if everyone acts maximally responsible. Tools wear out, they need repair, they'll eventually need replacement. I don't see why it is a nightmare. You don't call driving a car a nightmare just because you need to change the oil and need another car at one point, right?
As for the second part of your comment...my premise is not hiring vs DIY, but ownership vs access. Using the tool for DIY can be by buying it and then use once or twice in your lifetime or by having access to it when you need it, and when you don't others would have access to it.
I think it is more of a mindset challenge than a logistical, although logistics are important as well. And yes, tools are really good investment. I think the question is, isn't it a better investment if it's a communal one as opposed to individual.

Jim Fry wrote:Depends on where you are, and what you are doing. In the city, you may have many alternatives to transport. If your car is unavailable, you might have subway or bus or bike or walking. But on a farm, much of life and work is very time critical. You often need big, expensive equipment to plant corn or bring in the hay. And very little choice when you do it. Largely based on weather. You can't share equipment when several folks need to do the same thing at the same time. And, there are just simply many farmers who are lousy at maintenance. If you need to do something "right now", you can't afford to have someone else break what you need. The only way it's going to work to share is if you are a truly communal society, like The Community of Separatists at Zoar, Ohio, in 1817. Sharing everything worked for a while in Zoar, as long as they had a very strong, charismatic, leader. But once he was gone, even Zoar failed.

As for farms, harvesting and crop dusting companies are good examples, in terms of logistics, efficient utilization and availability. They are living proof that equipment can be shared. (Except in a capitalistic environment it operates under a profit producing model rather than a sharing model)
Yes maintenance is key, but what is better? Having a pool of equipment and if one is broken you still have access when you need it, or having your own, you break it and now you have no access to a functional equipment. The counter argument seem to be that equipment need maintenance. True, but they do need maintenance whether you own it, or have access to it when you need it. The ownership model makes no difference in having to keep the equipment in good working order.

If a community is dependent on a charismatic leader, it is not sustainable. Communities like that are ticking timebombs. In your example it was not the community that failed, but the leadership model. Funny thing is that historically even empires collapsed because of the same reason, and we still don't realize that any and every single man leadership is destined to fail.

Around here, there are companies that rent all sorts of tools, inexpensively compared to owning the items.

I agree a tool rental facility makes sense maintenance of the tools, storage and replacement costs are factored into the rental price. The same thing would have to be factored in to an access pool. Insurance and liability unfortunately probably be a required layer. My nearest rental facility is 35 miles away. Ultimately someone owns it, the car for example. Unless the pool of individuals who have access are required to maintain it, it appears to me to be problematic. Someone's name is on the title and in a society as litigious as we have become one careless action though not intentional could create consequences unforseen.

One thing that I have heard, is that if you borrow/rent something three times, you might consider owning one yourself. This still runs into the sitting on a shelf most of the time scenario, but you might be a frequent user at this point, not a "once-and-done" user.

Another idea is divesting yourself of a thing, after you have done all or most of what you needed it for, not merely hanging on for that one more time in the future it's needed? (sunk cost fallacy?)
This has some tangible benefits:
You recoup some/all of your investment. Your spouse/children/heirs might not have a clue as to it's real worth (or what it even is for?!) and might lose out when they sell it off.
The "item" is still "current" and in usable condition, not suffered from long/poor storage, and not obsolete with parts/consumables unavailable.
You don't need space to store it, or capacity to remember where it is when it is needed...

An "item" could be "loaned indefinitely" to a neighbor, friend, or relative who is needing to use it. In exchange, they would keep it in good condition and return it to you if you actually DO need it again (or if they no longer need it). Sometimes, this is a topic of discussion that third time that it gets asked to be borrowed!
It also builds a relationship where you might be more likely to be loaned other things in return, or an outright trade.

Jim Fry wrote: You often need big, expensive equipment to plant corn or bring in the hay. And very little choice when you do it. Largely based on weather. You can't share equipment when several folks need to do the same thing at the same time. And, there are just simply many farmers who are lousy at maintenance. If you need to do something "right now", you can't afford to have someone else break what you need.

This seems to be a problem of having large farming operations. My family farms in an indigenous community in southern Mexico. We have land access-not private ownership and the community (very small about 60 families) has three tractors that are owned communally. Each year you get on the roster for the tractor. There are also several people who privately own a team of oxen and if your field is in a difficult position for the tractor, you can hire them to come plow instead of the tractor. Obviously freezing isn't an issue so there is slightly more flexibility but rains and thunderstorms are an issue.


ETA: the tractors have been in the community since the 1960s, and oxen have been working the land with the people in this fashion for about 400. Previous to that, it was done without animal labor.

The original idea behind Uber, Lift, Airbnb, etc might have been *sharing* But capitalism got a hold of those ideas real fast and there is nothing sharing related about them. They are pure labor exploitation. They are the class who owns the capital convincing the workers to buy the tools they need to do the work and do all the maintenance of them!
I think the OP was thinking more like a video rental club or a streaming service or a little free library (leave a book take a book) type model. You either pay a monthly fee, or buy in, or join by donating some of your tools to the library of tools and you get access to them.

Erik Ven wrote:[quote=Robert Ray
As for the second part of your comment...my premise is not hiring vs DIY, but ownership vs access. Using the tool for DIY can be by buying it and then use once or twice in your lifetime or by having access to it when you need it, and when you don't others would have access to it.
I think it is more of a mindset challenge than a logistical, although logistics are important as well. And yes, tools are really good investment. I think the question is, isn't it a better investment if it's a communal one as opposed to individual.

My point is that there was no one to borrow from and my purchase was less than having to hire someone or to rent the tool for the time to complete the project. So ownership was a fiscally intelligent move. I have lent the tool out and had it returned with a case of homebrew.

I have worked with several non-profits with a pool of  at least 150 people. I think you will discover that in a volunteer system you are blessed if 10% do the work required. If your system required a commitment for access it could work. However somewhere at some level someone's going to be the one or  responsible group that signs off on a vehicle, whirring blade chipper. Who commits the time to schedule use and upkeep, where are the accessible tools/cars/machines stored securely.
Your initial "it would not work for cell phones" forgets that initialy party lines were a common thing, a shared asset. If I look at my network of friends time and tools are shared freely for the most part. I needed a crane to assemble a community greenhouse, John's got a crane. I needed a man lift to set the greenhouse sidewalls. Booger's (not his real name) got a man lift. I think access exists already for many.

A short story.

We have dozens, actually hundreds, of folks who come here to learn about farming, gardening, heritage skills. One time there was a fellow who talked a really good line. He knew just about everything about everything. One day I had to go get some lumber. I was gone about an hour. While absent from the farm, the fellow decided to cut down a dead tree. He didn't ask first. So I never had a chance to question if he knew how to run a chainsaw. But, you know, he knew everything.

The saw was low on gas, so he refilled it. A few minutes later it quit running. So he went and got my other saw. Filled that one also. (Did I mention they were both fairly new saws?) That one also quit shortly after. I got home and he asked me to show him how to start the saws. So I did. ~~No, I didn't. They wouldn't run. So I took them into the shop to see what was what. They were both cooked. Unrepairable. The fellow had put plain gas into the two stroke, gas & oil mix only, engines.

The point of the story is that there is a great variety of what folks actually know. And sometimes, they know Nothing. And our community went sawless until we could afford new saws. A very expensive lesson.

Jim Fry wrote:The point of the story is that there is a great variety of what folks actually know.  

And in what they remember if the last time they used the knowledge was a year ago - or longer.

The best tool library situations I've read about depend heavily on volunteer time, do a lot of training of people immediately before the tool is handed over, add tags and painted on instructions to the tools as well as the tools being clearly marked as belonging to the library in question, as starters. Many have "rental" fees and "membership" fees and it may still be hard to stay in the black without donations being accepted as well.

No system is perfect. We've bought tools only to find they've got factory defects that wasted a ton of time. We've borrowed tools only to have to repair them before we could get started, and we've had rental tools which failed to work as advertised.

I agree that Step 1 likely needs to be to follow the first Law of Coops: everyone thinks they're working 110%  harder than of anyone else. That means everyone has to work 120% longer and harder than everyone else, just for the coop to succeed!

First, I applaud anyone who can make sharing willingly work! I am all for it in the right situations, that are a benefit to all involved. Here, I feel compelled to share my perspective though, as I am aware there is a strong push towards a more societal change in such a direction.  

During the height of the lock-downs for covid, a family, which my family had considered really good friends for many years, needed a place to stay for the winter. They were moving far up north in the spring but needed time to finish their tiny home. We offered them to stay with us. It seemed we had very similar values and ways of living. We've worked/played well together many times. We gave them access to a spot in our yard that was already set-up for their house, a place for them to store what they were moving, and workspace and tools to use for their projects. We were considering moving up north with them when they moved so that we could at least try to survive together.

They had been running an organic farm, where they had many wwoofers come and go, as well as being hosts for air bnb. They had told us many of the hardships of living with others, although they weren't swayed against continuing to try. Given that they had so much experience in the shoes that my family were about to try on, I had trusted that they would not become the problem that they complained about to us...

They eventually moved in, and we were having fun. We were finally socializing again, which was especially important for their and our children...  ..Then their children started hitting our children, taking things from them, and breaking their stuff. We chalked it up at the beginning partly to them having a hard time having to move from their farm, and partly the result of the isolation of being locked-down. At first, the other parents would correct the behavior, and we would move on. Eventually the corrections stopped and our pointing out the behavior was being dismissed. Their children and dogs were breaking things in our yard and garden, which the parents knew of their importance, especially in such times..  yet they would either ignore or dismiss the behavior nonchalantly and I was left to deal with the mess.

The parents were also using our appliances/facilities, and lots of things were breaking. I was offered compensation for the parts but was told they wouldn't pay me for my time to fix any of them. I also noticed some things were being taken, without them directly being asking for. They would mention they needed something, and if I didn't offer up my extras, they felt entitled to take them. Then when I needed them I had to find alternatives, which was an extra hard-ship given the lock-downs.

At the breaking point, my wife and I were screamed at and told that my family and I were the problem. We didn't ask them for any money for electricity or rent the whole time, and we went out of our way to provide them with many resources.

In the end we stopped talking with them until they left, and they are now likely up north telling everyone that we were the problem, as they told us about so many of their problematic woofers.

For some extra context, these, "friends," of ours talked highly of communal sharing and the system utilized in Castros' Cuba while hating on capitalism, yet protected their own possessions fiercely. They also hated pollution etc., but filled our trashcans 4x faster than we would…

I also felt/feel that there are many problems with the current ways of doing things, but I come from the perspective our problems have less to do with the way we manage resources, (i.e capitalism/communism) and more to do with the power structure, (hierarchy vs anarchy/rulers vs. no rulers.) If the same people/groups running capitalism today start running 'whatever-ism' tomorrow, the greed for power will not just disappear, even though they may be saying all the right sounding things.

I am still not opposed to forming an intentional community/sharing resources and space, even with having had a terrible experience with it, but I am going to proceed very cautiously in those regards.

-Jim

Things I don't feel willing to share:
Laundry machines (with my mental health differences sharing with people is just too paranoia-making for me, unless they, like us, don't have pets and thus there won't get animal hair in everything.)  Less important is our tendency to just sort of have rolling laundry, it never seems to be finished haha.
My husband's car:  Again if people aren't letting their pets in there it would be fine to lend it sometimes when we don't need it, but he uses it for work, we use it for camping, we use it on days when we go places.  Due to my other disability I can't drive, so I don't drive it, just him, but it gets us places, so we would only be willing to lend it part of the time and we can't always plan everything in advance enough to know which hours of the day we need it.
Computer/phone/clothes/our bed/stuff like that of a personal nature, but I doubt others are interested in sharing those things so the point is probably moot haha.

Camping stuff:  I suppose we could share a few of those things, but not our tent/cot/futon mattress, again unless the borrowers are not getting fur in things) coolers and camping dishes aren't as much of a concern.

I'm open to sharing other things though.

While I agree with the concept of sharing, it has been a much too common occurrence in my life to have loaned something out to either not have it returned or have it returned damaged.

As I see it, if I can't access it whenever I need it it on demand, it do any work for me. To use the vehicle example....I own my own, because I have places to be, and I need to go when I need to go.

As far as the maintenance thing.....if you don't know how to fix it, you don't really own it.