The issue is not "is someone's investment at stake", the issue is the difference between a not particularly intimate relationship, like that between an employer and an employee or between a landlord and a tenant, and a significantly more intimate relationship, such as the one between two roommates who are sharing common living areas such as bathrooms.

There is a great difference between, on one hand, "I will employ you and pay you money to perform a task to agreed-upon standards" or "I will rent a living or work space to you which you may use as you see fit (for legal purposes only)", and, on the other hand, "I will share my home with you and hang my toothbrush next to yours and deal with s...

The issue is not "is someone's investment at stake", the issue is the difference between a not particularly intimate relationship, like that between an employer and an employee or between a landlord and a tenant, and a significantly more intimate relationship, such as the one between two roommates who are sharing common living areas such as bathrooms.

There is a great difference between, on one hand, "I will employ you and pay you money to perform a task to agreed-upon standards" or "I will rent a living or work space to you which you may use as you see fit (for legal purposes only)", and, on the other hand, "I will share my home with you and hang my toothbrush next to yours and deal with seeing you in your bathrobe first thing in the morning".

Since this concession involves a personal conflict, why does that same rule not apply to hiring, renting, etc. when someone's investment is at stake depending on the type of tenant or employee?

As Lexi pointed out, there are different standards for workplace/business and the home.

The social move to adopt corporate values into our everyday lives (and why that's a bad thing) is the main issue Douglas Rushkoff discusses in Life, inc.

I mean this in no way as a personal attack Jatfla. But that's what I do hear as the subtext of your position, that the values and decision criteria for how we or...

Since this concession involves a personal conflict, why does that same rule not apply to hiring, renting, etc. when someone's investment is at stake depending on the type of tenant or employee?

As Lexi pointed out, there are different standards for workplace/business and the home.

The social move to adopt corporate values into our everyday lives (and why that's a bad thing) is the main issue Douglas Rushkoff discusses in Life, inc.

I mean this in no way as a personal attack Jatfla. But that's what I do hear as the subtext of your position, that the values and decision criteria for how we organize the privacy of our homes should be the same as those under which we organize our public business transactions.

I think that sort of corporatism is a profoundly bad idea, and one from which our society is generally burdened with to our distinct detriment.