To respond directly, one who takes on a share of tail risk needs to enjoy a share of the generic upside, so the carpenter would get a small equity stake in the house if this was a non-trivial risk.
This helps a lot—I think that more explicit emphasis on risk and reward needing to be symmetric in both type and shape in addition to magnitude would help a lot.
Edit: would help a lot for the symmetric justice argument, I should have said. Although a casual introspective review of my conversations about risk says it would be a good idea for all such discussions. I will develop a habit of being explicit about the type and shape (which is to say distribution) of risks moving forward.
This helps a lot—I think that more explicit emphasis on risk and reward needing to be symmetric in both type and shape in addition to magnitude would help a lot.
Edit: would help a lot for the symmetric justice argument, I should have said. Although a casual introspective review of my conversations about risk says it would be a good idea for all such discussions. I will develop a habit of being explicit about the type and shape (which is to say distribution) of risks moving forward.