In my experience, grocers always do include unit prices…at least in the USA. I’ve lived in Florida, Indiana, California, and New York, and in 35 years of life, I can’t remember ever not seeing the price per oz, per pound, per fl oz, etc. right next to the total price for food/drink and most home goods.
There may be some exceptions, but I’m struggling to think of any except things where weight/volume aren’t really relevant to the value — e.g., a sponge.
Worse, I've seen CVS do things like place a 180-count package of generic medication next to an identically-sized 200-count package of the equivalent name brand, with the generic costing a bit less, but with a slightly higher unit price due to the mismatched quantities.
In Canada I think they are legally required to, but sometimes it can be frustrating if they don’t always compare like units - one product will be price per gram or 100 grams, and another price per kg. I’ve found with online shopping, the unit prices don’t take into account discounts and sale prices, which makes it harder to shop sales (in store seems to be better for this).
It is...kind of. But we're talking about severely limiting the ability of insurers to distinguish high risk parties from low risk parties and price accordingly. When the insured parties have limited agency over the risk they present — as with, e.g., health insurance for congenital diseases — this kind of regulation can make sense. But when insured parties can control the risk, such regulation usually makes insurance markets much less efficient. Essentially, it takes away the incentive for insured parties to avoid risky behaviors, creating moral hazard. This is a well-understood mechanism for market failures.
We already have this problem with car insurance in California. In the 1980s, at the tail end of a long series of stupid initiative ballot measures, Californians wrote down that there are only 2 strata of risk: good drivers, and everyone else. "Good Driver" is defined as a person who has had a license for 3 years without killing or injuring anyone. Because of this, California is the only American state where the law requires that a middle-aged person who drives a base model Honda Fit, and a 19-year-old with a Dodge Hellcat who miraculously hasn't killed anyone, yet, that we know of, both get the same "discount". And consequently it is unlawful here to offer those telematics systems that charge less to good drivers and more to bad ones.
I think it needs to also be acknowledged that insurance itself is a moral hazard. Focusing on the "efficiency" and moral hazards of only the insureds is an incomplete analysis.
Insurance is a for-profit enterprise and as an expert told me, "the goal of insurance companies is to not pay claims". It essentially wants to be passive income at the end of the day.
Modern capitalism runs on insurance but should it? Health insurance is a great example: it shouldn't exist, and is unnecessary in single-payer systems. Car insurance is another example, where you can argue that insurance is locked-in to hide the fact that cars are systematically unsafe. Note how you don't need insurance to ride the subway.
The point is, insurance exists to make rich people richer off of risks that could be addressed socially in other ways. When we see that entire states are losing home insurance because of other systematic problems like climate change we should look at the system itself. Maybe making profit off of people's unavoidable risk isn't a great idea.
EDIT: in response to parent, my point is that focusing on the ills of regulators harming efficiency needs to account for the impossible job regulators have in the first place, which is making an unfair system (insurance) fair.
The way I read it, it’s actually the opposite of what you wrote. You suggested that the Fed relied on inflation numbers that it knew to be too low — i.e. that inflation was understated due to failure to account for substitution effects and the like. In fact, the Boskin commission concluded the opposite — i.e. that inflation figures were overstated in aggregate due to failure to account for things like quality changes and the substitution effect.
No, they suggested it now relies on inflation numbers that it knows to be too low. They said that inflation numbers used to be more realistic, but they have recently been lower than real inflation that consumers experience.
I have nothing to contribute but this video from comedian Rob Paravonian It's probably 20+ years old, but it frequently pops into my mind when I think about the apartments I lived in during my 20s. The materials were shoddy, but the price was right!
It wasn’t clear to me from the article itself, but for those familiar with research in this area: has anybody attempted to disentangle differences caused by genetics vs. by environment per se?
