Bill Overview
Title: Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2022
Description: This bill generally makes it unlawful to sell or offer for sale a good or service at an unconscionably excessive price during an exceptional market shock. The bill also provides additional funding to the Federal Trade Commission.
Sponsors: Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]
Target Audience
Population: Global consumers and businesses
Estimated Size: 334000000
- The bill is aimed at regulating pricing during times of market shock, which can arise globally affecting international commodities markets.
- Consumers worldwide who rely on imported goods, the prices of which could be subject to gouging, are directly impacted by such legislation.
- Businesses involved in cross-border trade need to comply with new regulations, impacting global supply chain dynamics.
- The Federal Trade Commission's increased funding suggests enhanced capability for monitoring and enforcement, affecting markets and consumers inside and outside the U.S.
Reasoning
- The policy targets price gouging, prominent during market shocks which could affect necessities like fuel, food, and medicine—items critical to daily living for many Americans.
- Given the $100 million budget in year one, and the broader reach over a decade, enforcement may be constrained in scope initially but can grow with more funding and regulatory refinement.
- Highly populated areas or regions with frequent exposure to market shocks (due to natural disasters or global commodity dependencies) may experience significant impact.
- There will be both direct and indirect beneficiaries. Directly, consumers protected from unfair price hikes during crises, and indirectly by broader economic stabilization efforts.
- Different demographic groups (e.g., low-income individuals, rural vs urban residents) will have varied levels of economic resilience and susceptibility to price changes.
- The Federal Trade Commission's expanded role means they're more likely to impact visible and extreme cases of price gouging, potentially missing less obvious cases.
- Self-reported wellbeing is likely to improve for those directly benefiting from protected pricing conditions, while for others, the impact might be minimal or negligible.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (New York City, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds like a good idea; it's been rough when prices suddenly hike up, especially during storms or emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Logistics Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think regulation is necessary, but it could complicate international trade operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how this policy might increase my costs from wholesalers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've struggled with prescription costs. If this helps keep them down, it would mean a lot.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good that someone is looking out for consumers, but I hope it doesn't lead to shortages.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Barista (Miami, FL)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- When hurricanes hit, everything gets so expensive. It's tough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't feel it will impact me much; most of my purchases aren't affected by market shocks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Automotive Engineer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fuel prices are crucial. If the policy helps keep them in check during crises, that’d be great.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
College Student (Rural Wyoming)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We don't buy much affected by this, but mom says groceries have been pricier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My focus is on global trade impacts, but immediate tech needs might not feel this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $105000000 (Low: $85000000, High: $125000000)
Year 3: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 5: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $170000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $230000000)
Key Considerations
- How the law defines 'unconscionably excessive price,' which could lead to legal challenges.
- Potential administrative burden on businesses to comply with monitoring and reporting requirements.
- Enforcement effectiveness by the FTC is crucial to achieving the desired outcomes.