I've got a theory. My theory is that almost all the respondents on this thread are American. If so, it suggests that the concepts of honour and fair play don't extend across the Atlantic from my country (UK).
At this point, it looks like you are Troll Baiting, in the quoted section, or whatever it should be called.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_bait
Don't be boring by banging on about trolling. It's very tedious. If you've got nothing constructive to say, then please don't say anything. The grown-ups are having a conversation, so don't interrupt.
I actually do think there is a cultural difference between the US and the UK when it comes to business practices. I am not being facetious. I think there is a much clearer and simpler attitude to profit in the US. Making a profit is considered honourable and reasonable, and even laudable. In the UK there is still a hint of "dishonour" or "greedy" about it. We are just slightly uncomfortable with the idea of profit. The distinction between making a profit and profiteering is paper-thin on this side of the pond.
I think there is another cultural difference, too, around individualism. The US is far ahead of the UK in terms of individualism, and individuals looking out primarily for themselves. Making a profit from failure (as I've been talking about above) seems to be morally OK in the US, because the culture is all about putting yourself first. Others are responsible for their own success and well-being. It's not your job to look after someone who struggles to look after themselves.
Since 1979 (when Thatcher was made Prime Minister) Britain has been on a journey away from collectivism, towards individualism. We've a way to go before we catch up with the US, but we are certainly going that way. Old bastards like me remember the time before Thatcher and regret the growth of individualism.
Maybe this is why I might be instinctively more reluctant to make a customer pay when I haven't repaired their product. I don't know, maybe I'm talking crap.
----
Well, guys, I think I'm about talked out, and I have learned a lot from you all and taken on board many of your arguments. The one I simply cannot move on with a clear conscience is this (which I still find astonishing and hard to believe):
"I am being paid to work on the customer's product, not to repair it. If it does get repaired, great, we're both happy. But if not, I'm still going to charge the same amount because it's my labour that is being paid for, not the fruits of my labour."
To which my response is BULLSHIT! The customer doesn't want your labour, they want the
fruits of your labour. Your business model is outrageously unfair on the customer, because you can fail, and fail, and fail again, and still go home every day with another $1,600 in your pocket. It's "Heads I win, tails you lose".
Your argument that "market forces" will weed out the numpties isn't much help to those poor customers, though, is it? And if repairers are in short supply, market forces don't come into play.
It is also astonishingly arrogant to believe that your time is worth $200 per hour even when you've no clue what you're doing. That's what happens when a computer expert gets an audio amp to fix. You'll still charge $200 per hour, won't you? We both know you will.
Anyway, we've hit the buffers on this debate and I've come away saddened by the arrogance some people have expressed ("I'm worth $200 per hour whether I know what I'm doing or not") and some people's lack of empathy for the customer ("Fix or no fix, you owe me $1600 for the day I spent poking at your audio amp and hoping for the best").
Nothing more to say, is there?