Bill Overview
Title: Competitive Prices Act
Description: This bill makes a consciously parallel pricing coordination (i.e., a tacit agreement among two or more persons to raise, lower, change, maintain, or manipulate pricing for the purchase or sale of reasonably interchangeable products or services) a prohibited form of price fixing.
Sponsors: Rep. Porter, Katie [D-CA-45]
Target Audience
Population: Global consumers affected by price changes
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill targets economic activities that have to do with price coordination, which implies a focus on entities involved in setting prices, such as companies or corporations.
- By prohibiting tacit price-fixing agreements, this bill would directly impact businesses that engage in such activities.
- Consumers could benefit from this bill as it aims to ensure more competitive and fair pricing.
- The legislation would generally affect industries where price coordination might be prevalent, including commodities, consumer goods, and services that have similar substitute products in the market.
Reasoning
- The Competitive Prices Act is likely to have a moderate to high impact on industries where price coordination has been prevalent, especially among manufacturers and retailers of similar products.
- The policy is also likely to directly benefit consumers by reducing artificially high prices that result from collusion practices.
- Businesses, especially those with history or tendencies toward price fixing, might see increased scrutiny and potential disruption in their usual operations.
- Given the US's large consumer base and varied industries, the policy might differently impact each sector depending on existing pricing practices.
- Due to the budget constraints, immediate aggressive enforcement might target major offenders, while smaller entities might face phased enforcement.
- Educational initiatives for businesses could be a key part of the initial rollout to ensure compliance and prevent accidental infringements.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this act stops major suppliers from coordinating prices unfairly, it could help me keep my prices competitive without taking hits on margins.
- I think the act is fair if it means more transparency in pricing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Consumer Advocate (Chicago, IL)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could significantly empower consumers by assuring fair pricing through its prohibition on price-fixing.
- Its success will depend on enforcement and the ability to detect subtle forms of coordination.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Tech Company Pricing Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy adds an extra layer of challenge, but ultimately, it promotes authenticity in strategy and aligns well with our company's values.
- More competitive environments could push us to innovate further.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Factory Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see any direct impact on my life, but if it means prices drop, that's good for me when shopping.
- It's more for those at the corporate level to worry about, but it sounds like a positive move overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retail Executive (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act imposes necessary changes but for those maintaining transparency, it shouldn't be alarming.
- Adjustments in vendor negotiations might be required, but competition-driven pricing isn't new for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Lawyer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This adds more work for our firm as we guide clients through compliance, but it strengthens the market integrity.
- It could become a significant focus area for one's career given the legal implications of price-fixing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Freelancer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that leads to cheaper prices for gadgets is a plus in my book.
- If manufacturers can't price fix, maybe we’ll see more sales and discounts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Grocery Chain Operations Manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the act will level the playing field and could benefit our business by breaking down price cartels.
- Our priority will be to ensure full compliance while keeping prices competitive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tech Startup Founder (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulating price fixing creates fairness, which is crucial for startups like ours trying to enter competitive markets.
- Initially, there may be confusion in the market, but long term, it's beneficial for our product visibility.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Academic Researcher (Boston, MA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new legislation will provide rich data on price manipulation effects on markets.
- It reinforces the importance of competitive practices, a topic I believe is underrepresented in current policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $290000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $340000000)
Year 3: $280000000 (Low: $230000000, High: $330000000)
Year 5: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 10: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- The potential for improved market efficiency through fair competition.
- Initial government enforcement and regulatory costs may be offset by longer-term market benefits and consumer savings.
- Possible changes in industry behavior and adjustment costs leading to short-term impacts.
- Impact on inflation due to possible changes in pricing dynamics.