I can say that what we’ve done in the past is give people some space at the start to see the value and then, over time, lean on them a bit without actually imposing any consequences. If everyone else is paying $20 and they’re only paying $5, it’s reasonable to, after a time, ask them if they think that’s really fair given everyone else is paying $20. What makes them different/special such that they should only pay $5?
Would not apply pressure for them to leave unless their behavior was negatively impacting the sangha. Just paying less than everyone else is fairly private, so assuming all else was equal then I expect to let them stay so long as we could afford it.
ask them if they think that’s really fair given everyone else is paying $20. What makes them different/special such that they should only pay $5?
This might be effective social pressure, but it doesn’t seem particularly rational. If someone else volunteers to pay you more than they need—and more than YOU need—then why should that obligate me to do the same?
Your question is a though one.
I can say that what we’ve done in the past is give people some space at the start to see the value and then, over time, lean on them a bit without actually imposing any consequences. If everyone else is paying $20 and they’re only paying $5, it’s reasonable to, after a time, ask them if they think that’s really fair given everyone else is paying $20. What makes them different/special such that they should only pay $5?
Would not apply pressure for them to leave unless their behavior was negatively impacting the sangha. Just paying less than everyone else is fairly private, so assuming all else was equal then I expect to let them stay so long as we could afford it.
This might be effective social pressure, but it doesn’t seem particularly rational. If someone else volunteers to pay you more than they need—and more than YOU need—then why should that obligate me to do the same?