Bill Overview
Title: Emergency Price Stabilization Act of 2022
Description: This bill creates the Sub-Task Force on Emergency Price Stabilization under the White House Supply Chains Disruption Task Force. The new task force must monitor the price of essential goods and services, investigate corporate price increases, make recommendations to the President, and report plans and research to the public. The bill also grants the President the authority to enact or adjust price controls and regulations in accordance with these recommendations.
Sponsors: Rep. Bowman, Jamaal [D-NY-16]
Target Audience
Population: People who buy or sell essential goods and services globally
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill is aimed at stabilizing prices of essential goods and services.
- Price changes for essential goods impact all consumers by affecting their purchasing power.
- The bill grants authority to control inflation, which impacts everyone who buys goods and services.
- Price controls generally affect companies that produce, distribute, or retail essential goods.
- The supply chain employees may also be impacted as their work might be regulated or adjusted based on new guidelines.
Reasoning
- The budget of $1.5 billion in year 1 suggests a significant but not unlimited ability to impact policy, likely focusing on critical spending rather than comprehensive price control across all sectors.
- The total budget spread over 10 years allows for incremental and careful analysis, suggesting a more measured approach to experimentation with price controls.
- The population affected is vast, as nearly every American participates in the market for essential goods and services.
- While most people will be affected to some degree, the impact will vary significantly based on socioeconomic status, geographic location, and roles within supply chains.
- High-impact segments may include low-income families who are disproportionately affected by price volatility in essentials and employees within the supply chain sectors.
- Businesses may face medium to high impacts depending on the regulatory actions enforced by the task force, which could affect operations and profitability.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Store Manager (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think any measure to stabilize prices would be beneficial, especially for essentials.
- Fluctuating prices make it difficult to manage inventory and meet customer expectations.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Price stabilization sounds crucial, especially with how rents and grocery prices are behaving.
- As a freelancer, stable prices mean I can budget better during lean months.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Agricultural Producer (Omaha, NE)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Price controls could limit profitability if not implemented cautiously.
- I'm concerned that input costs (fuel, seeds) might not see the same regulation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If prices are controlled, my grocery bill might be more predictable, which helps a lot.
- I'd be less stressed about unexpected price hikes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm particularly worried about my medication and healthcare costs; any stabilization would be a relief.
- Fixed income makes me vulnerable to price increases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Tech Company Salesperson (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I don't feel the pinch of price fluctuations immediately, keeping housing costs stable is a long-term benefit.
- Tech costs affect my job positively as more investment might come in during stable times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Controlling price hikes on essentials could let me save more.
- There's always some worry about how industry changes could impact my job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Restaurant Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Price stabilization means possibly more predictable supply costs, but I worry about controls making it harder to introduce new pricing models.
- Small businesses aren't always the focus of such policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Hospital Nurse (Boston, MA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's not just the healthcare I'd like stabilized but daily living costs overall.
- Stable pricing can mean less stress and more quality time for myself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Logistics Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Price stability is crucial for forecasting logistics and planning.
- The right policies can minimize disruption in supply chains, but excessive control can also stifle innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 2: $1400000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 3: $1300000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1600000000)
Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- Effectiveness of price control can be variable and might not address supply-side issues.
- Potential unintended consequences include black markets or reduced investment in production if price ceilings are too low.
- Coordination with existing regulatory bodies is crucial to avoid redundancy and optimize resources.
- Monitoring and enforcement require robust mechanisms to ensure compliance and effectiveness without stifling market functions.