10 ms·
It would certainly look bad, and I think it would potentially be illegal in some states. https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gouging-laws-
by burkaman 7y ago
It would certainly look bad, and I think it would potentially be illegal in some states.
https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gouging-laws-by-state.html https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gou...
For example, Georgia:
> Selling items or services determined by the Governor during a declared state of emergency to be necessary for public safety at a higher cost than they were immediately prior to the declaration.
Kansas:
> For any supplier of a "necessary property or service" to "profiteer from a disaster" by charging 25% or more than the pre-disaster price for such goods/services.
Louisiana:
> Selling goods/services during a declared state of emergency (within the designated emergency area) in excess of the ordinary price range immediately before the declaration.
Mississippi:
> Selling goods and services at above the prices normally charged during a declared state of emergency (or what was charged immediately preceding the declaration).
etc.
Also consider that raising prices would itself be a form of prioritization, just prioritizing ability to pay over need.
- x0x0 7y agoThey aren't raising prices; they're limiting availability. All three quoted laws solely cover prices.
- gmanley 7y agoThis thread is discussing the hypothetical legality if they did raise prices.
- jodrellblank 7y agoYes; the laws are being quoted to explain why they are limiting availability instead of raising prices.
- dfee 7y agoI don’t know how I feel about this. In the general case, I feel like price gouging during emergencies is unethical. But, when there is a non-artificial supply and demand issue, I struggle with the derivative effects of these policies. My concern is that rather than simply evaluating on the consumers ability to pay (and backwards-looking at prior statements instead of increased go-forward costs), these policies add only one additional criteria: ability to threaten legal issues. Thus, it’s only effect is to prioritize government agencies alongside wealthy clients. And that’s just governments using force to get better treatment. Which also feels unethical. But maybe there’s a happier and healthier read of the situation.
- freeone3000 7y agoGovernments will also exert this force on behalf of their citizens, is the happier read. In a disaster, everything becomes finite, but profiteering is still deeply disruptive to the shared societal fabric.
- p1necone 7y agoYep - if there's N capacity to provide a necessary necessary good/service, but M > N need, raising the price doesn't seem like a great solution to manage it in a crisis situation. To some extent non necessary uses would decrease, but you also end up with more wealthy people who want it more getting it, and more generally there won't be any distinction between want and need.
- icebraining 7y agoJust like outside a crisis situation.
- ineedasername 7y agoPossibly, but in a crisis situation it is quite a bit more important to deliver adequate service to the "need" group. Outside of a crisis, the "need" group can pursue less expensive alternatives at their leisure. Right now, "fast" is critical.
- p1necone 7y agoAnd outside of a crisis situation demand patterns change much more gradually - long enough for manufacturers to ramp up production, more competitors to emerge etc. The normal feedback loops that make core goods available to the masses don't have time to happen right now.
- ineedasername 7y agoPrecisely. It seems like most manufacturing & supply chains have some elasticity for increased demand, e.g., toilet paper manufacturers were able to increase production either 10% or 20% very quickly (I forget which), but after going all out with 24 hour shifts, you can't do much more in the short term. Also, the more companies that have to do this, the more likely there will be correlated supply chains that feed those companies their raw materials, meaning the issue contaminates the supply & logistics process one more link up the chain.
- vbezhenar 7y agoDoes this regulation applies to the entire supply chain? Otherwise it might become unreasonable to produce some goods at all if component cost raises too much.
- cosmodisk 7y agoIf you are making bread and suddenly price of flour increases by 600%,so you have to increase your prices. Unless you are based in a country run by some delusional autocrat, you'd be fine. If, however,the supply chain is fine, i.e. your toilet paper supplier, however you end up selling it for 500% price because people can't seen to have enough of it- the the laws would apply.
- loeg 7y agoUnfortunately these "delusional autocrats" run the government of, for example, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. and would absolutely punish such a baker.
- lalaland1125 7y agoI highly recommend that you read through the legislation. The legislation explicitly allows prices to increase due to actual increases in costs. The only thing that's banned is increases in price due to increased profit margins.
- jefftk 7y agoPrice gouging rules also keep people from speculatively ramping up production at the stage where it might be needed but you're not sure yet: https://www.jefftk.com/p/price-gouging-and-speculative-costs https://www.jefftk.com/p/price-gouging-and-speculative-costs
- tracker1 7y agoIn this case, they'd be likely to look at the upstream suppliers.
- 7y ago
- lend000 7y agoI wonder how many masks would be floating around by now if there were no laws or public shaming for raising prices in an emergency.
- perl4ever 7y agoSomething something mythical man-month.
- aianus 7y agoI have an entire Costco package of toilet paper that will last me months while some poor bastard near me is probably wiping his ass with his hand (or worse, flushing paper towel and causing thousands of dollars of damage) because there is no effective way for me to resell my excess in a way that is legal and won’t result in crazy social media backlash against me. I similarly have months of supply of hand sanitizer (one big bottle, not hoarding). The drawbacks of these laws don’t feel hypothetical to me right now.
- chipotle_coyote 7y agoWouldn't you be within the law if you simply sold the rolls at your own cost, or even your cost plus 10%, rather than trying to turn a large profit from them?
- aianus 7y agoI might be within the law (although in some places like BC all reselling is straight up illegal) but some busybody would still call the cops on me and online listings would be taken down by the likes of amazon or ebay.
- perl4ever 7y agoYou could give them to your friend(s) if you have any. Or try freecycle. It's not difficult once you realize that if you actually care about waste, then you don't have to profit.
- lonelappde 7y agoThat still leaves a 24% gap.
- bharam 7y agoIn the short term it might look bad. But in the long term it would encourage other companies to enter the market and existing players to increase their capacity.
- DangitBobby 7y agoYou are assuming that economics for such continue to make sense after the crisis is over, which I sincerely doubt.
- pc86 7y agoMost states specifically exclude price increases based on increased prices from suppliers or other increased expenses from the vendor and well as increased costs internally (e.g. having to cover increased overtime). Not saying it wouldn't be litigated, but if you can show that it costs more to provide these services when more people want them, it's a pretty clear exception and completely reasonable. But even then the general range of prohibition seems to be 15-25%. 25% is a huge jump, would they even need to increase prices that much to cover everything?
- antpls 7y agoIsn't limiting availability also covered by laws ? Why should we pay the same price for limited service ? (Unless that's covered by their ToS?)