If you charge people for something, it kicks their perception of the act into a different category. That in turn effects how they think about the interaction and what their sense of entitlement and expectations are in ways that can be counter-intuitive.
A famous related study is: https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-wha...
They found that when daycares fined parents for picking up their kids late, the result was parents picking them up even later. Because, without the fine, parents treated the pick-up time as a moral/social obligation that they did not want to uphold. Once the fine was introduced, they treated this as a simple financial transaction where if it's worth it to pay the extra to pick them up later, why not?
What I do know is that I completely respect snarf21's choice to either charge or not as they see fit.
- Israel has the highest fertility rate in the developed world (3.1 children per mother on average)
- The average gross monthly salary at the time of the study was NIS 5,595
- If the average parent comes late 4 times a month, that's 4 * 3.1 * 10 = NIS 124 = 2.2% of their monthly salary, or the majority of an entire day's pay (!) - that's not nothing.
That said, there are two interesting conclusions from the paper. Firstly, the well known one:
> Parents may have interpreted the action of the teachers in the first period as a generous, nonmarket activity. They may have thought: "The contract with the day-care center only covers the period until four in the afternoon. After that time, the teacher is just a nice and generous person. I should not take advantage of her patience." The introduction of the fine changes the perception into the following: "The teacher is taking care of the child in much the same way as she did earlier in the day. In fact this activity has a price (which is called a ‘fine’). Therefore, I can buy this service as much as needed."
But there's also this:
> The behavior in the third period, however, is still difficult to explain. Now the first social norm would predict a low level of delay. We may think that a period of 4 weeks is not sufficient to bring the behavior back to the appropriate level. But considering that 2 or 3 weeks had been enough to double the level of delays after the introduction of the fine, we should estimate that the learning rate of the parents is too fast to justify so much inertia. Perhaps a third social norm is needed: "Once a commodity, always a commodity." This norm and second clause of the first norm explain the behavior in the final period: a commodity at zero price is bought in large quantities. Overall, three norms seem necessary to explain three facts.
If I'm helping then I refuse any kind of money. I don't give guarantees or service like a business does, I don't want money like a business does. I do often ask that they try to learn from the experience, I'll gladly explain everything I'm doing.
The other option is I refuse, for whatever reason that is.
This keeps my choices those of a friend and my responsibilities those of a friend. I like keeping them that way.
And if it's something where I'm not confident, or its not replaceable / way too expensive, that's when I'll decline. But typical computer repair or building is really easy and safe. Need help delidding your CPU or some other uncommon thing? I'll give advice but I'm not handling it.
Anyone else I am happy to sit right next to them, happy chat and advise, be a pair of extra hands as required.
But I won't sit there while they walk away and do anything else.
If it isn't worth THEIR time to fix it, it isn't worth mine.
You are free to decline this work.
Most employment contracts have stipulations about working for competitors. They're rarely enforced, but you can sometimes get caught out if something goes pear-shaped.
If you haven't taken any money, it's a lot harder to hang this on you.