- This topic has 38 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I just read an article about a Best Buy store in Houston selling cases of water for $42 each. After lots of backlash on social media, the store apologized, but some are arguing that there’s nothing wrong with what they did.
Discuss
Halacha says something about this. That should be your starting, and ending, point.
im against it but in truth did you ever hear of “supply & demand”?
Joseph
1. It must be rough being your chavrusa
Chavrusa: “Keitzad haediem naseh zomimim…”
Joseph: ” Halacha says something about this. That should be your starting, and ending, point.”2. Does the halcha apply to bnei noach?
3. Not all are aware of the halcha. Believe it or not their is a poster who doesnt believe in the halachos of onaas mammon. It is important to educate
The free market does not take ethics into account.
There is nothign wrong with that. They didnt force anyone to buy it. You wouldnt complain if they were selling cases for $5 so why are you complaining if it is $42. I see this very often on amazon the same item in blue is $8 and in yellow will be $57. It doesnt make sense but that doesnt mean its wrong.
Well there are people who spend $30 for a LB of Shmura Matza!
When there was major gas shortages by Superstorm Sandy until the city came out strongly against it many gas stations raised their prices significantly. This meant that people only took 3/4 gallons to save money, which meant more people were able to get gas. When the city was enforcing price gauging laws people started filling up their tanks which meant most stations supplies were wiped out within several hours. I think increasing prices when there is an actual supply shortage encourages people to ration which ends up helping everyone.
chabadgal,
There is nothign wrong with that. They didnt force anyone to buy it. You wouldnt complain if they were selling cases for $5 so why are you complaining if it is $42.
It’s not so simple. This is an emergency situation, and many people cannot simply access another source of water – either they are flooded out of their homes or their utility water is contaminated. And with massive power outages, currency becomes more limited to cash, making it harder for some to pay, even if they had credit or debit cards.
To take another tack, imagine if right before Sukkos, the stores selling esrogim in a town got together and decided to up the price to something ridiculous, effectively insuring that large numbers of people in the town would be unable to fulfill the mitzva of arba minim. Would there be “nothing wrong with that”?
You can ration without price gouging.
You can ration without price gouging.
How, pray tell? Until the government formally sets out rationing rules the supply is used up. If they’re enforcing price gauging rules suppliers have no reason to ration themselves. If they’re anyhow not earning more money; the sooner they sell out the sooner they can go home. The only reason they would limit someone’s purchase would be out of the goodness of their heart which we certainly can’t rely on.
The government has a right and an obligation to prevent this practice, it is no different than monopolies.
According to Best Buy, it was one store and instead of putting the case price they multiplied the individual bottle price buy the number of bottles in the case.
How, pray tell?
Limit per customer, like they have on some sale items.
The only reason they would limit someone’s purchase would be out of the goodness of their heart
In states without a law preventing it, the only motivation for a store not to price gouge would be because it’s bad PR. Similarly, it would be good PR to limit the amount per customer, to look like good citizens.
How, pray tell?
Limit per customer, like they have on some sale items.
The only reason they would limit someone’s purchase would be out of the goodness of their heart
In states without a law preventing it, the only motivation for a store not to price gouge would be because it’s bad PR. Similarly, it would be good PR to limit the amount per customer, to look like good citizens.
If I recall correctly they set limits on gas purchases by Sandy but by the time they got around to setting the limits most gas stations had run out. The only way setting limits would be good PR is if they paid to advertise it as such. Otherwise social media would be full of “What the ***??? I went to fill up my tank and the attendant was just like ‘sorry, 5 gallons per customer’. I am never shopping at XXXX again”
Meno: Exactly. The computer system was down. It’s amazing how we always say “dan lkav zechus” except where we feel it’s not warranted. My advice for you, to show your disgust, is to personally boycott Best Buy due to a mistake by one store in flood ravaged Houston, Texas.
Gamanit are you serious
You think this ““What the ***??? I went to fill up my tank and the attendant was just like ‘sorry, 5 gallons per customer’. I am never shopping at XXXX again””Is more of a concern than ““What the ***??? I desperately need clean water so Icna continue living and the store keeper was just like ‘sorry, $42 per case’. I am never shopping at XXXX again”
?Otherwise social media would be full of “What the ***??? I went to fill up my tank and the attendant was just like ‘sorry, 5 gallons per customer’. I am never shopping at XXXX again”
Meh, not worse then the outrage if they would price gouge, or even if they would run out.
It shouldn’t be too hard to explain rationing when there’s a shortage.
Meno, could it be they just weren’t offering the case price, just the per bottle price?
Reading the article on the main page indicates just what Iacisrmma states. It was a mistake by the employee who gave the price per bottle and multiplied by the number of bottles in the case. I don’t usually frequent Best Buy but that store usually does not sell water (according to Best Buy). I find the explanation plausible.
Meh, not worse then the outrage if they would price gouge, or even if they would run out.
Right, but price gouging gives them more money.
It shouldn’t be too hard to explain rationing when there’s a shortage.
so you’d think but reality is different
Keeping prices “artificially” low leads to two outcomes: Hoarding and failure to restock. You can prevent hoarding with rationing (assuming of course you can pull it off – people don’t keep coming back for more, etc.) but stores won’t restock if it’s not worth it.
Let’s say the local water distributor is out of stock. A store owner might be willing to hire a trucker to bring in a load of water from further away, but that will cost more than his usual stock. If he can’t recoup his higher costs, he won’t do it.
The moral argument is that price gouging prevents poor people from being able to afford necessities, but not allowing prices to rise to the market level means that there won’t be any of the necessities available for any price. Nobody will have bottled water if it’s not worth it for businesses to incur the extra costs to bring it in.
Re Best Buy: If the only times the employee has ever bought a bottle of water is for $2 or $3 at the mall, sure a case price of $42 makes sense!
Why not do a combination of rationing and price gouging? In order words, you allowed to buy up to 5 bottles of water (or whatever number) at the regular price and every additional bottle is $42 (or whatever)?
Isn’t it well-known advice that you’re supposed to prepare for hurricanes by storing a several-day supply of drinkable water?
Yes Meno, I can believe this if it’s the larger bottles (1 liter or 1.5 liters). I can’t tell from the picture what size it is. Having once entered 14999.00 on an old fashioned cash register for a package of diapers purchased by a customer I can believe that an employee made a mistake. Stupid mistake? Yes, but still a mistake.
To RebYidd23: The free market takes everything into account, including the extent to which the people in the market are affected by their ethics.
Allowing people to buy (however many) at the old price means that any supplier who restocks at a higher price (say, by paying someone to drive much further to buy additional products to sell) will lose money on the first (however many) he sells to each customer. It’s not worth paying more to buy stock that will have to be sold for less than the seller pays.
ChanieE, there are two issues; ethics and PR.
Ethically, some say it’s fine to charge what you can, and some say it’s unethical to take advantage of a disaster this way.
I think even the second group would agree that if the higher prices are due to higher cost of obtaining the goods, not just because they can get it, that’s ethical.
PR wise, that may or may not fly, depending on how it’s presented to the customers.
Best Buy’s explanation is plausible. They don’t sell water by the case, so there was no case price, just a per bottle price.
DY – Are we talking specifically about Best Buy or about price gouging in general?
I’m willing to believe that Best Buy made a mistake. It’s not like they always sell bottled water and suddenly raised the price.
As far as price gouging in general, you’re probably right that fear of bad PR would prevent some businesses from raising prices to cover the temporarily higher costs. That should be a business decision, though, not a government decision. It doesn’t help anybody get bottled water or other supplies when politicians go on and on about how awful it is if prices go up. I think we need to change the way we talk about prices during times of shortage, as we are on this thread 🙂 “Gouging” is a very judgmental word.
ignore my previous comment, didnt realize the whole story and that it was in middle of the hurricane
ChanieE, I was referring to price gouging in general, then mentioned that Best Buy in particular wasn’t necessarily engaging in price gouging.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.