That is news to me, and welcome. By the FAQ, it appears furnace filters must be covered. Box fans might be borderline, but even being seen publicly accused of violating gouging laws would be bad for HD.
But yeah, any large retailer would avoid any appearance of price gouging even if they could get away with it legally just to avoid the bad publicity.
Although on Amazon it was pretty wild to watch -- I guess if they're not technically N95 masks they can take the price as high as they want since they aren't actually recommended for protecting against viruses. But actual certified N95 masks just became unavailable instead of having high prices.
Part of that is because 3M has been incredibly good about not raising their prices, and has been very clear to its distributors that they're not ok with them raising the prices. Of course this does nothing to stop the hoarders/private sales jacking up prices on eBay...
I can't speak for ER healthcare workers, but I know from experience that hospital surgical nurses wear N95 masks. I'm not sure why anyone in healthcare would need a P* mask, since they aren't generally exposed to oil.
If I really thought I needed a P100 mask, I'd get a rubber respirator with screw on filters -- they are easier to fit, and the dual respirators have more surface area for easier breathing.
It's a real bummer to hear such comment - why spread this?
P100 Approved, NIOSH's highest rated filtration efficiency in a filtering facepiece respirator. It is just a higher rating. "P100's are significantly harder to breath in" <- not at all! You should try one - they breath great. They are meant for workers to wear all day. They even have a nice leather like seal making it easier to have proper seal. Also! They are perfect for a quick trip to the grocery store or standing on a bus.
ALSO! The screw on versions are great but they are MUCH heavier and impossible to put in a pocket so they are not practical at all. Nothing about your comment was accurate :(
Why spread what? You're the one that claimed that medical workers all use oil resistant P100 masks, while what they overwhelmingly use is N95's (the ones that are medical grade are ASTM certified to be water/fluid resistant, not oil resistant).
In the hospital I worked at, if staff needed better filtration than that N95 could provide, they used full face, powered respirators. (positive pressure means a perfect seal is less critical, and it provides eye protection).
Here's 3M's healthcare line of healthcare masks, they are all N95:
https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/c/ppe/respiratory-protection/h...
I use it to cycle and it's ignorable when cycling casually but discomfortable when going for performance. Anedoctally I don't find the extra effort to breathe to be a problem but just the saturated & hot air. So if I were to exhale each time with the mask of and inhale if it on it wouldn't be a problem. PS. I use masks w/ valves and those without one worsen this issue.
Of course. The choices are:
1. high price, and availability
2. same price, and none available
Americans seem to always choose #2.
As such, consumers are right to feel vindictive when companies do try and engage in that kind of profiteering; and that social dynamic is one of the ways to keep the market healthy when there are many more consumers than producers - effectively a kind of collective bargaining - at least, if the producer is sensitive to that kind of thing. Sometimes the profit will be worth it and they'll just shrug it off, of course.
But in particular, we should be careful not to support a narrative that empathizes with profiteering, because such empathy (absurd as it is anyhow for a corporation) undermines the shared social frustration needed for the implicit collective bargaining that's happening with these kind of social events. If everybody believes that it's just natural for a company to seek profit above all else, and crucially thus accepting that it's OK for them to screw over the consumer, then it's going to be hard to build momentum for any backlash, and thus hard to improve the negotiating position of the consumer.
Even from a radically capitalist standpoint that's bad, because capitalism works best (is most efficient) in transparent markets where all participants have equal power - and since that's never the reality, it's necessary to counterbalances against larger market participants, or those with more information.
If something is an issue for just 1-2 days maybe. If it's more then it seems that should be enough to get at least some express shipments if there was profit to be made.
However, if you can expedite shipping like this, can you do it in bulk? If so, you probably don't need to raise prices by much at all. But it's also quite likely not simply a matter of pressing the conceptual "expedite" button, because the stuff needs to arrive from somewhere and if it's an unexpected spike in demand, finding a bunch of supply that's ready to ship that quickly strikes me as being unreasonably lucky. More likely, it'd take time to find alternate suppliers, and shipping sufficient quantities to make a dent will take a while.
Of course, if you're doing it for one or two items - individuals can do that themselves, and yes, it's going to be expensive, and no, it's not likely to really increase supply a lot overall.
My assumption here is that shipping in bulk is much more efficient than small-scale shipping, but takes longer to arrange and prepare. But because the costs are spread out over so many items, even if shipping costs extra, that rarely translates to significant price hikes; bulk shipping, even expensive bulk shipping, is assumed to be a fairly small slice of the overall purchase price.
Sure it does. For example, with gasoline, it incentivized people outside the disaster zone to load up jerry cans with gas, and drive into the zone to sell it. Anti-gouging laws sure put a stop to that! Now no gas is available.
> consumers are right to feel vindictive when companies do try and engage in that kind of profiteering
Exactly what I said - people prefer no availability.
> not to support a narrative that empathizes with profiteering
Then you'll need to be happy with shortages, long lines, and misallocation.
> capitalism works best (is most efficient) in transparent markets where all participants have equal power
This is not true at all. Lack of information is accounted for by being pricing in as "risk". I do not really understand where the notion that free markets require perfect information comes from. We price in risk all the time. People pay less for items that are risky (like knock-offs) and will demand higher investment returns for risky investments.
1. stocking up whenever possible because of anticipated shortages
2. hoarding in order to sell on the black market
3. hoarding by people who don't need it "just in case"
4. runs on items, so the people who get it were the ones who got their first, either by being lucky or by getting tipped off. (How is this fair?)
We saw this play out magnificently in the Great TP Shortage of 2020.
100% caused by anti-gouging laws.
The idea that anti-gouging laws (and rationing) produce "fair" results should have been amply proven in that shortage, but people can't get past "but it isn't fair!"
If gas is $3 a gallon, someone with 1/2 tank may stop and fill up. If gas is $30 a gallon, he will be more likely to drive on until he can get far enough away that gas prices would not be high. This leaves gas available for those that are running close to empty and will not make it to the cheaper gas.