Best Buy; price gouging during emergency!

[ArthurWilborn]

Summary: Increasing prices prevents the first few people who come from hoarding, insuring that the limited supply available is distributed to more people.

 

[kenandkids]

Summary: Increasing prices prevents the first few people who come from hoarding, insuring that the limited supply available is distributed to more people.

... and prevents all of those disgusting poor people from buying whatever those with more money might want...

 

[Nashy19]

Double post

 

[Nashy19]

Summary: Increasing prices prevents the first few people who come from hoarding, insuring that the limited supply available is distributed to more people.

If there was a shortage wouldn't shops put a limit on how much people can buy each?

 

[kenandkids]

Doesn't really work when shops have a limit on how much you can buy.

It's sooo un-American to institute reasonable measures when gouging is so much more profitable...

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

1. The stores could assign a reasonable limit on what is purchased. Automated check outs could to this.

2. People could have a reasonable number of non perishable items already stocked at home.

3. How does price gouging save lives when you are talking about hotel rooms? I just don't see a good argument for that.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

1. The stores could assign a reasonable limit on what is purchased. Automated check outs could to this.

2. People could have a reasonable number of non perishable items already stocked at home.

3. How does price gouging save lives when you are talking about hotel rooms? I just don't see a good argument for that.

Limits would be a bit tough to administer as they're pretty easy to circumvent, but that's also a possibility for the quick-thinking and civic-minded store owner. Two I agree on.

With hotel rooms it's not so much about "lives" but there is still the aspect of limited supply. More expensive hotel rooms would help insure greater density of usage (eg a family using one room instead of two) and thus insure that more were available.

 

[Aught3]

1. The stores could assign a reasonable limit on what is purchased. Automated check outs could to this.

2. People could have a reasonable number of non perishable items already stocked at home.

3. How does price gouging save lives when you are talking about hotel rooms? I just don't see a good argument for that.

Limits would be a bit tough to administer as they're pretty easy to circumvent, but that's also a possibility for the quick-thinking and civic-minded store owner. Two I agree on.

With hotel rooms it's not so much about "lives" but there is still the aspect of limited supply. More expensive hotel rooms would help insure greater density of usage (eg a family using one room instead of two) and thus insure that more were available.

Or it could ensure that those who don't need to stay so close keep driving away from the area to less costly accommodation.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Perhaps it's too much to ask individuals to use civic minded thinking during a crisis.

I'm thinking it should be government officials that should set recommendations for a safe distance away from the projected path. Hurricane forecasting is not an exact science. You can construct probability maps but knowing exactly where one is going to make landfall (and actual intensity) two days in advance is not hard science. It seems that places that set higher prices when evacuation is happening is a bit shady.

 

[Nashy19]

Perhaps it's too much to ask individuals to use civic minded thinking during a crisis.

I think it would be easier, during a crisis people are usually willing to work together. It's not really anything new either, it's the normal thing to do, at least in some places.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Perhaps it's too much to ask individuals to use civic minded thinking during a crisis.

I think it would be easier, during a crisis people are usually willing to work together. It's not really anything new either, it's the normal thing to do, at least in some places.

well depends on the crisis.. and the people.. + random factor
and depends on the way of working together
some people like to plunder when they're given the chance, helping them carry the stuff out of houses and shops is more selfish than it might appear :lol:
others see a way to make a profit, sell weapons/food/batteries/whatever
then there are the egoiistic ones, looking for a way to get through the crisis unharmed, aka RUN FORREST! or hoarding whatever they can get their hands on, stealing etc

and the few people who actually try to help.. if they manage to motivate the masses to really do give a hand here and there and try to be selfless.. that often gives others a reason to stick together and be helpful patient etc

dealing with a crisis often has a lot to do with peer pressure and survival instinct..

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The article updated saying that, for one day (8/28), the stores will price match local supermarkets as a gesture of good will.

The main point was that people are being evacuated (mandatory for many, and last count I saw said ~1mil.), and getting h2o is a priority for many people. Having a large company not accommodate for the situation, while not entirely unethical, just shows that they arent committed to the communities they serve (which is a staple core value for many businesses).

The very least they could have done from the get-go would be to sell it for no profit (even though we all know bottled water is the bread and butter of Best Buy's income).

>.>
This is all stemming from chronic ignorance of capitalism.
Here's how a corporation works - it issues wares for branches to sell. The main hub of the corporation says "this is so-and-so dollars." And, guess what? It's that amount of currency. Uniformly.
The branches then get payed based upon how many units they effectively "move" from the store into the hands of customers, which is a percent of the profit.

If Best Buy had walked out and started giving out water for dirt-cheap, without the corporation's permission, they risked a large head-rolling.
Why? Because that's how the contract works.

The reason they could even lower the price on the 28th was because Corporate said "This is giving us bad press - toss them a fucking bone for a day."

 

[Lallapalalable]

I understand that corporations act based on the decisions of select individuals, but perhaps the manager could have made a few phone calls to check that that is expressly what HQ wants them to do. Granted, I dont know the details and perhaps he did, but then that would mean somebody made the decision to sell 24 0.7 liter bottles of water for 40 bucks. If he didnt look for a way to lower the price it simply means he had no civic mindedness for the community he works and probably lives in (I did mention that perhaps "price gouging" was a bit far).

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I understand that corporations act based on the decisions of select individuals, but perhaps the manager could have made a few phone calls to check that that is expressly what HQ wants them to do.

On the radio-ran phone lines that were not working 9/10ths the time due to severe cellphone traffic?
:roll:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

>.>
This is all stemming from chronic ignorance of capitalism.
Here's how a corporation works - it issues wares for branches to sell. The main hub of the corporation says "this is so-and-so dollars." And, guess what? It's that amount of currency. Uniformly.
The branches then get payed based upon how many units they effectively "move" from the store into the hands of customers, which is a percent of the profit.

If Best Buy had walked out and started giving out water for dirt-cheap, without the corporation's permission, they risked a large head-rolling.
Why? Because that's how the contract works.

The reason they could even lower the price on the 28th was because Corporate said "This is giving us bad press - toss them a fucking bone for a day."

Yeah, and while it is sort of crappy, it is also unfair for people to blame the guy making $9.13 an hour in Year #15 at Best Buy for not making a creative and potentially career-ending decision to mark down prices without corporate permission. "Manager" at a big box store isn't like "manager" of a project at a big tech firm.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Yeah, and while it is sort of crappy, it is also unfair for people to blame the guy making $9.13 an hour in Year #15 at Best Buy for not making a creative and potentially career-ending decision to mark down prices without corporate permission. "Manager" at a big box store isn't like "manager" of a project at a big tech firm.

People expect Manager to be this magic and mystical principle where they can do what they want -
unfortunately, it's basically being an enforcer of Corporate's decisions and policies. It's more like a Moderator status.

 

[kenandkids]

Wait... so Both Joe and Hytegia are defending the manager by saying that it isn't like he could take responsibility and just lower prices on his own...

yet he did just that by raising them on his own! So far as I've heard on the matter, corporate did not give the go ahead to raise prices in this manner. The manager saw an opening and took it. I'd personally wonder if he even intended to forward the profits on to the company, handwritten signs during a very small timeframe and all...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Wait... so Both Joe and Hytegia are defending the manager by saying that it isn't like he could take responsibility and just lower prices on his own...

yet he did just that by raising them on his own! So far as I've heard on the matter, corporate did not give the go ahead to raise prices in this manner. The manager saw an opening and took it. I'd personally wonder if he even intended to forward the profits on to the company, handwritten signs during a very small timeframe and all...

So, you're just going to ignore everything people have posted, and go back to your original nonsense. If that store doesn't sell in bulk, the manager CANNOT magically create a bar-code scan that gives the bulk discount you want to pretend exists. :facepalm:

Did you ever see a bulk package of food where the individual packages were marked "not for resale"? That means that the bulk package can't be broken up and sold individually at a higher price, By the same token, if individual servings are shipped in a bulk case, that doesn't mean the case itself is marked for sale. I don't know how else to explain it, and you're coming off as intentionally obtuse at this point.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Did you ever see a bulk package of food where the individual packages were marked "not for resale"? That means that the bulk package can't be broken up and sold individually at a higher price, By the same token, if individual servings are shipped in a bulk case, that doesn't mean the case itself is marked for sale. I don't know how else to explain it, and you're coming off as intentionally obtuse at this point.

It clearly is a bulk price though, hand written, it doesn't leave the best impression.. especially in the middle of a crisis.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It clearly is a bulk price though, hand written, it doesn't leave the best impression.. especially in the middle of a crisis.

It is clearly a total price, not a "bulk price" which implies a discount.

Let's say that you go to a restaurant that sells chicken strips with a side of KC Masterpiece BBQ sauce. The first 2-oz cup of sauce is free, and each additional one is $2 for a 2-oz portion. While you're sitting there, you look on your smartphone and see that Amazon.com sells cases of a dozen 18-oz bottles of KC Masterpiece BBQ sauce for $45. That comes out to $0.21 per ounce.

Do you think that you have any right to demand that the restaurant sell you a 2-oz portion for $0.42 just because that it the price for the sauce in bulk on the Internet?