U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Business
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 10:46 PM
 
5,803 posts, read 2,612,081 times
Reputation: 5577

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
I think he was providing a service people needed and were willing to pay for, rather than shovel it themselves, or invest in their own snowblower.

Good example of price gouging--which always happens after a hurricane, is the water that minimarts are selling for 3 times the normal cost, or the gasoline. Things that are necessities when their is a shortage and no choice--hiking up those prices is price gouging.
No that’s not price gouging. “Price gouging” doesn’t exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 10:09 AM
 
Location: North Idaho
21,609 posts, read 27,109,275 times
Reputation: 41016
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechGromit View Post
......... A landscaper was charging anywhere from $500 to $750 an hour for snow removal.........



He couldn't have been charging much more than the other snow plowing people or he wouldn't have gotten any work. So, his rate must have been typical for the area.


Removing snow is hard, heavy, dangerous work. But any homeowner who doesn't want to pay it is welcome to shovel the snow off himself.

Snow removal from a roof can run a couple of thousand dollars on a large steep roof.

You can't compare the price for snow removal to the price for mowing a lawn.

I assume OP doesn't live where it snows since he is unaware of the cost of snow removal.

Last edited by oregonwoodsmoke; Today at 10:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Raleigh
7,692 posts, read 5,661,689 times
Reputation: 10562
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
People have no right to purchase goods and services at a price that they deem as acceptable, even in the presence of natural disasters.

Laws against "price gouging" are simply the result of economically illiterate politicians pandering to a more illiterate constituency.

The FACT that anti "price gouging" laws ALWAYS result in shortages in the wake of disasters should be proof positive of how ridiculous the "gouging" issue is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
No that’s not price gouging. “Price gouging” doesn’t exist.
Get your nose out of your Economics textbook. Sure, in a perfect world someone can stock up on water, fuel, canned food, and store it more or less indefinitely, and "gouging" doesn't exist.

In everyday life in this country, people count on ready access to clean water. They also have limited space/facilities to store a bunch of water or gas for a hurricane.

Our politicians aren't economically illiterate and neither is the constituency. The politicians and their constituents have decided that its in society's best interest to prohibit spiking prices in response to demand/supply shock due to natural disasters.

They do that so Bob doesn't decide, "$50 for a case of water, YIKES!" and his daughter doesn't require an ambulance in the wake of a disaster because they didn't have clean water; and remember, that ambulance "costs" a lot more in the wake of a disaster; in terms of risk for the First Responders, their equipment, the fact that you're likely paying them overtime, not to mention the opportunity cost on civic resources diverting them from work that needs to be done in the wake of said disaster.

They do that so Sue doesn't make a choice not to spend the money on Gas and drive 300 miles to her sister's house requiring public tax dollars that go to her evacuation or shelter.

No, we're perfectly literate and perfectly willing to cause a shortage if it means that more people have an easier time making it through said disaster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:02 PM
 
2,557 posts, read 2,245,252 times
Reputation: 2869
I always chuckle at people who talk about price gouging like it is a bad thing.

It's kinda settled economic theory... that when price gouging occurs (say, bottled water during a hurricane), that where price gouging exists, MORE people get access to emergency supplies. And when prices are set by law, fewer people get the supplies they need.

It is plainly obvious to most people who have even a rudimentary understanding of economics why this is the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:08 PM
 
2,557 posts, read 2,245,252 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV View Post
Get your nose out of your Economics textbook. Sure, in a perfect world someone can stock up on water, fuel, canned food, and store it more or less indefinitely, and "gouging" doesn't exist.

In everyday life in this country, people count on ready access to clean water. They also have limited space/facilities to store a bunch of water or gas for a hurricane.

Our politicians aren't economically illiterate and neither is the constituency. The politicians and their constituents have decided that its in society's best interest to prohibit spiking prices in response to demand/supply shock due to natural disasters.

They do that so Bob doesn't decide, "$50 for a case of water, YIKES!" and his daughter doesn't require an ambulance in the wake of a disaster because they didn't have clean water; and remember, that ambulance "costs" a lot more in the wake of a disaster; in terms of risk for the First Responders, their equipment, the fact that you're likely paying them overtime, not to mention the opportunity cost on civic resources diverting them from work that needs to be done in the wake of said disaster.

They do that so Sue doesn't make a choice not to spend the money on Gas and drive 300 miles to her sister's house requiring public tax dollars that go to her evacuation or shelter.

No, we're perfectly literate and perfectly willing to cause a shortage if it means that more people have an easier time making it through said disaster.

Oh... so when Bob sees the $50 case of water, he might only buy one case because he only buys what he really needs to get by?

You probably think it would be better for Bob to be able to buy 25 cases at $2 each and then the next 24 people get turned away because the store is out of water.

As for the "perfect world" stuff, who cares? Everyone who lives in a hurricane zone knows they should have 2 weeks of essential supplies including things like batteries and water days before a hurricane watch is ever issued. If people are unwilling to take simple steps to take care of themselves, then I don't really feel the need to help them either.

Same reason I oppose most universal healthcare systems. If you can't be bothered to get a flu shot which costs a few dollars, why should the taxpayers pick up the bill for your visit to the doctor, diagnosis, treatment, and lost work productivity which will easily run into the hundreds if not thousands of dollars?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:41 PM
 
5,803 posts, read 2,612,081 times
Reputation: 5577
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV View Post
Get your nose out of your Economics textbook. Sure, in a perfect world someone can stock up on water, fuel, canned food, and store it more or less indefinitely, and "gouging" doesn't exist.

In everyday life in this country, people count on ready access to clean water. They also have limited space/facilities to store a bunch of water or gas for a hurricane.

Our politicians aren't economically illiterate and neither is the constituency. The politicians and their constituents have decided that its in society's best interest to prohibit spiking prices in response to demand/supply shock due to natural disasters.

They do that so Bob doesn't decide, "$50 for a case of water, YIKES!" and his daughter doesn't require an ambulance in the wake of a disaster because they didn't have clean water; and remember, that ambulance "costs" a lot more in the wake of a disaster; in terms of risk for the First Responders, their equipment, the fact that you're likely paying them overtime, not to mention the opportunity cost on civic resources diverting them from work that needs to be done in the wake of said disaster.

They do that so Sue doesn't make a choice not to spend the money on Gas and drive 300 miles to her sister's house requiring public tax dollars that go to her evacuation or shelter.

No, we're perfectly literate and perfectly willing to cause a shortage if it means that more people have an easier time making it through said disaster.

Really? You believe that, when that sentence concludes with you saying that causing a shortage means that more people will have an easier time making it through the disaster??

In the wake of a hurricane, when gas stations DON'T raise their gas prices, how much gas is available? If they DON'T raise their price on bottled water, how much water is available? The answer to both of those questions, is "none." Every time.

Serious question - which situation is preferable: Gas and water available, albeit at higher than pre-hurricane price, or NO gas or water available, but prices are maintained at the pre-hurricane level?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Business
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top