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: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: Global consumers
Estimated Size: 335000000
- Price gouging prevention typically affects consumers, as it aims to protect them from unfair pricing practices during emergencies or market disruptions.
- During an exceptional market shock, such as a natural disaster or pandemic, the legislation will help stabilize prices which could have otherwise been unfairly elevated.
- Economic data suggests that a significant portion of the global population experiences market shocks and emergencies that can lead to price gouging.
- The impact of the regulation is primarily on consumers but also involves businesses that might otherwise engage in price gouging.
Reasoning
- The policy targets consumers, who are directly affected by price gouging. Consumers across various demographics experience these issues during market shocks like natural disasters or pandemics.
- To simulate the impact accurately, we should consider diverse consumer backgrounds, including age, occupation, and geographic location, as these factors influence how market shocks affect them.
- Although the legislation is designed to protect consumers, the policy may not significantly impact everyone equally - the level of impact varies based on personal circumstances like financial status and market dependency.
- Our simulation includes a mix of high, medium, and low-impact cases to reflect the varying levels of exposure and vulnerability to price gouging across the population.
- The commonness score helps us weigh interviews more heavily for those scenarios users represent a typical experience or more frequently occurring demographics within the U.S. populace.
Simulated Interviews
Healthcare Worker (New York City, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I witnessed firsthand how prices of essential goods skyrocketed during the pandemic; this policy seems necessary.
- I hope it will keep prices stable during future emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a small business owner, the policy is double-edged; it can help me avoid supplier price gouging but may restrict pricing strategies during stock shortages.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- On a fixed income, any increase in living expenses impacts greatly, so I hope this act helps stabilize costs during hurricanes.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I support consumer protection measures, I personally haven't felt strongly impacted by price gouging.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Delivery Driver (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With fuel and auto-part prices sometimes jumping due to supply issues, this policy might be a positive change for workers like me.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Generally unaware of market shocks; if it keeps essential goods affordable, it could help students like me.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Warehouse Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supply chain disruptions affect our pricing strategy and inventory. If regulated prices mean stable procurement, it could really help.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Education pay doesn't always keep pace with inflation. This policy might help keep my family's grocery bills from spiking.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Veteran (Denver, CO)
Age: 65 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Price stability is crucial for my limited budget, so this policy could make a difference during volatile times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Vermont)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Farmers dealing with volatile supply prices could benefit if this policy curtails excessive cost hikes for essential supplies.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $155000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $205000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)
Year 5: $170000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $220000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of enforcement by the FTC is crucial to deter price gouging during market shocks.
- The administrative and operational costs of implementing price monitoring mechanisms.
- Businesses and their pricing strategies may need adjustments to comply with new regulations.