Labor is an exhaustible resource.

That is not a metaphor, Dear Reader. A systems-level observation that the owner class has somehow avoided internalizing despite depending on it entirely. Turns out "people are not a magic replenishing pasture" is a harder sell than it should be.

Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economics for her work on the Commons — shared resources that, left ungoverned, get depleted by the very people who depend on them. She called it a Common Pool Resource problem. Hardin called it a tragedy. What neither of them studied, and what nobody seems to be talking about right now, is that the American labor market is one.

So let's talk about it.

Common Pool Resource 

Labor is not traditionally considered a common pool resource, but that's changed with the work of Elinor Ostrom and the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Humans are private entities and actors, yes. But collectively they form groups. Under our system of Capitalism, humans provide the labor which is utilized by the owner class to increase wealth. Those workers have some autonomy in where they go, but they can be consumed by the owner class as they have limited capacity, lifespan, and tolerance for conditions. Since the employers tend to coordinate to some degree, I think it's important to understand how this resource is managed currently.

It is not being effectively managed or governed.

I don't mean like, "OMG Portland is on fire due to arsonist frogs", I mean the commons have been left to the whims of the extractors.

Workers, as a general group, once could be considered to be loyal (dependable), they would grow in number, and they could be relied on to produce more and more goods and services as technology advanced. But humans are not a mythical, magically replenishing pasture. They are a living, breathing resource that must be maintained. We used to do this via labor laws. Workers need time away from work to be full humans. They have to be paid enough to participate in the economy in their off-time. They shouldn't be requested to die at work. 

Those laws have been relaxed either officially by overturning them or via lax enforcement. Minimum wage has not increased since 2009, and the time people spend at work only grows. Anyone can be laid off at any time and there is no trust that the companies workers give their labor to are engaging in activities that follow the social contract the workers try to abide by.

Trust

Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economics for her work understanding the Commons, defining Common Pool Resources (CPR), and showing how to calculate their use and success. In groups which successfully managed common pool resources, she found trust to be exceptionally critical. I have to trust that if I agree not to overuse our shared resource, you will not undercut me in some fashion.I have to trust that we agree on what we're managing, and that we will all follow the rules we have set. But workers are a resource which also needs to trust those they serve. It's an input into the system. It's human nature to protect energy and survival, and so we have to trust that if we give up a day, year, or decades of our lives, that we get an improved life in return.  

Employers are not engaging in activities that would build trust. Layoffs are expected now as part of being employed. 25% of those looking for work have been looking for over 6 months. Benefits keep getting cut, and workers are increasingly struggling to balance the cost of living with what they can make working. Even salaried workers are struggling with long hours, as they attempt to perform their own work, plus the work of their department that has slowly disappeared. 

Millennials have demonstrated to GenZ that hard work, loyalty, and "hustle culture" result in a very exhausted worker with no resources left to participate in the community. Those resources include time, energy, and yes – cash.

Systemic adaption

As people work longer hours, and for employers who don't have a stake in their local economy, our society has shifted. Work is something you show up to, and leave to go have a life. Bosses fly into the satellite office for a pep talk, and maybe a RIF, then they're off again. There are no company-sponsored community events as private equity or giant conglomerates have purchased most local services, and anything else has moved online. There are no more 3rd spaces and we've lost the habit of joining community groups. Everything we think we need is online.

When the experience of community leaves the community, we shrink. We adapt our circle only to those we see regularly. Our nebulous connections mean we don't have to work as hard to maintain local resources. Why care for the employees in your town who make your city run when you can go hire a team thousands of miles away (and pay them nearly nothing?) Our modern world has made all labor markets potentially available to employers, giving them the flexibility of lower pay, fewer employee protections, and a low exit cost for markets that promote the needs of the worker.

Transactions beget transactions

Work is increasingly transactional, not relational. In response GenZ has gotten quite smart and learned a 1-sided transactional relationship is a fast way to give up your humanity and community. So they are entering transactional relationships with employers from a place of something akin to equality. "Respect me as I respect you"

GenZ does not reject society anymore than the kids graduating in the 90s rejected commercialization. Their priorities just shifted. They want to get money for providing their labor. They want to have a clear contract that protects them. They enter into employment knowing it is temporary, and that they will be taken advantage of if they don't protect themselves up front. Srsly not personal just fr fr

Then employers complain that no one is loyal, no one "Goes above and beyond." They talk of "quiet quitting" and "mini retirements". But workers complain of being asked to cover multiple roles or act as entire teams. They don't have proper onboarding and training, and they hear all day how they must simultaneously master AI, but also be prepared to be replaced by it. 

The labor market has responded by moving to gig work, starting their own businesses, or simply refusing to participate. There are very few workers willing to offer up participation in their own exploitation. Which means employers have decreasing access to workers who care at all. They already don't have money to participate in the economy, so why would they spend their time producing products they will never consume?

Manage your pasture, yo

If employers want to have better access to labor, they are going to have to start treating it like the exhaustible resource it is. Understand that humans have capacities, and the closer you get to pushing that capacity, the faster you burn it out. Very clear rules of employment need to come back, be expanded, and have input from researchers who understand the system and the behavior of those who participate in it.. 

Employers are also going to need to think in systems. They are going to need to map things out and question assumptions. 

Hadin firmly believed that the Tragedy of the Commons was inevitable. 

Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

As long as each employer looks only at their own balance sheet, yes. It is inevitable. They are free to act however they like, but an advantage comes in seeing that you are pulling from a common resource and that if everyone is burning through it like there is no tomorrow, there won't be a common labor resource to pull from. As seen above, we're exploring the edges of that. What happens when all the workers refuse to give their time and labor to your venture?

So how does one actually manage this forest? 

Ostrom studied thousands of groups (institutions) and found some guidelines that the successful groups have in common. She also cautioned strongly that there is no such thing as a panacea. Sorry folks, you're going to have to think your way through this one based on your industry, location, skills of your employees, and all the other factors that go into managing a resource like a labor market. I would break those down for you, but she does so quite well in "Governing the Commons" and many wise people have outlined her ideas. But let's talk specifically about your own pool of employees.

I'm going to assume you hired them because they seemed like a good addition to your current labor pool. I'm also assuming you don't want to dump them all and start over. Hiring and training is exorbitantly expensive!

 So let's break this down.

1. Commons need to have clearly defined boundaries. Who is in the Labor Pool? Who draws from it? What are the roles? What are the role descriptions? When do they work? Where do they work? What are the unspoken rules? If you don't know, start asking what is and is not allowed and watch for what topics get avoided. Human brains need containers and stories, and it's much more conducive to a comfortable environment if you say those all out loud. If you don't currently have a role that defines work boundaries, hire a People Ops pro now. Like ASAP.

2. Rules should fit local circumstances. There are all manner of official employment laws you need to follow, but this also takes into account things like inclement weather patterns, local customs, the way your employees travel to and from work, how meals are handled locally, etc. There are probably millions of factors, and it is important to find out from local folks what does and does not fly. Those rules are not just for employees, you should be making rules locally for how employment is handled. When and how can people be hired and fired? What is time off like? How do you treat parents and caregivers? What happens when an employee faces a crisis like illness, family loss, etc?

3. Participatory decision-making is vital. It's a core principle of groups that those who have a hand in crafting the rules are much more willing to follow them. Don't make rules in a closed room, announce them, and expect instant compliance. At the very least, you're going to need to explain why. Even better, identify your leaders (not by title – by behavior and reception) and get those folks involved in any rule changes. Meet regularly to determine if the rules are working, and what (if anything) needs to change based on the data you are collecting.

4. Commons must be monitored. Commons don’t run on good will, but on accountability. And those who are subject to the rules must be part of monitoring the data. Showing up once a month or once a quarter with a fancy dashboard ain't it. For further reading, check out The Four Disciplines of Execution, especially regarding what he says about scoreboards. And for the love all Data, pick usable metrics. Something that actually has something to do what you are trying to accomplish. 

5. Sanctions for those who abuse the commons should be graduated. Ostrom the successful institutions didn’t just ban people who broke the rules. Banning tends to create resentment. Successful groups had graduated levels of warnings and fines, as well as informal reputational consequences in the community. Without the above principles of defined boundaries and participation, there is very little to be lost reputation-wise.

6. Conflict resolution should be easily accessible. Issues will come up, and when they do there should be a clear path to resolution. NOTHING gets swept under a rug. This part can be messy and painful, and sometimes it takes years to reach a resolution for particularly charged issues. But successful groups didn't give up. They kept meeting and talking, and understood the importance of the resource they had stewardship over.

7. Commons need the right to organise. Real organization. This can be an official city group with a charter, a legal entity, or a group with a formal charter. But it needs to be Really Official in order to have the rights to bargain and enforce rules. This was a major part of the redefinition by Ostrom and her team from the simple dichotomy of Private vs Public to including Common Pooled Resources. The organization becomes an entity in its own right with authority to take action on behalf of the resource.

8. Commons work best when nested within larger networks. From employee groups, to industry boards, to cities, states, federal agencies and even global networks, groups need to be able to move and up and down a hierarchy to get the things done they need to be successful. They also need to be accountable to groups in their ecosystem in order to navigate potential abuses.

Grow or Compost

The exit cost of leaving W2 work has never been lower — gig markets, creator platforms, AI-assisted freelancing. The commons is already organizing itself without you. The question isn't whether workers will find ways to govern their own labor. They will. The question is whether employers will be part of that negotiation or subject to it.

Ostrom's research is clear: commons governed by those who use them outperform both unregulated markets and top-down control. That means the most strategically sound move available to employers right now isn't lobbying against worker protections. It's forming your own commons — across companies, across industries — to implement governance before it's imposed on you. Define the rules. Build the trust. Monitor the resource.

Manage your pasture, or lose access to it.