1379
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 147 points 3 months ago

For the love of anything holy. Then they'll require to install a shitty app to shop at the grocery store in the first place. No, thank you

[-] anachronist@midwest.social 83 points 3 months ago

I shop at Jewel (which is currently under threat of being taken over by Kroger) and they're now doing this thing where there will be, for instance, peaches, under a huge sign showing an incredible deal. Then you look at it and realize that the price isn't discounted at all unless you install a "Jewel App" and use it to "claim" a "digital coupon."

[-] nutt_goblin@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jpeps@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Two major supermarkets do this in the UK now. I fucking hate it, it should be illegal. I also noticed recently a store with digital price labels. Combine the two and we're marching towards the news in the post at a breakneck speed.

Many supermarkets do adjust their prices based on the average income of the location they're in, so this isn't really different in some ways.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Sabata11792@ani.social 17 points 3 months ago

If I have to install spyware or open a link at a physical location, my top priority is to leave.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] frankgrimeszz@lemmy.world 95 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If you’re on the billionaire whitelist, you pay even lower than the people in poverty.

[-] anachronist@midwest.social 123 points 3 months ago

Saw an interview with a guy (on Bloomberg actually) who explained that "ability to pay" and "willingness to pay" are two different things and that the pricing system doesn't target people who have a lot of money ("ability to pay") but rather people who have fewer options.

Like, if the app knows that you don't have a car and this is the only grocery store you can walk to, you will pay a higher price.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 43 points 3 months ago
[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 81 points 3 months ago

don't worry. prices will come down when albertsons and kroger merge. large corps are just more efficient.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 3 months ago

They treat their workers better, too. And pay them more. /s

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] 9point6@lemmy.world 56 points 3 months ago

This way maybe a banana could cost $10

[-] Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 months ago

Is that... Is that not what it costs now?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 50 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If this happens... You can bet your ass my unemployed relative is going to be the one buying all the groceries with cash.

No cash? Well it turns out the untaxed gift allowance is $18,000, or $1500/mo, more than enough for all the groceries of a large family.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gearheart@lemm.ee 49 points 3 months ago

So instead of taxing millionaires fairly... It's come to this.

[-] HelluvaKick@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

How much could a banana cost? Ten dollars???!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 43 points 3 months ago

Then they get mad when people start stealing shit

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] theparadox@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago

Demonstrating the inherent contradiction of capitalism in practice.

Capitalism is allegedly the only fair way to price things, via the "Price Mechanism". However, capitalists have simultaneously been creaming their pants at the idea of charging specific people or people in specific situations more, because they can get more profit, in service of Profit Maximization.

I'm sure I'll get a lecture on how they are not at all mutually exclusive but I don't care, honestly. It's either going to price gouge when the customer is perceived to be in more need (low battery pricing for taxi apps) or have a price based on the customer's ability to pay... at which point why not socialism?

Essentially, the capitalist will support what is best for themselves and make up reasons why it theoretically might benefit consumers (but not really).

[-] grue@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

When people talk about the benefits of capitalism, what they're generally really talking about are the benefits of perfect competition.

The capitalists themselves, of course, absolutely hate perfect competition with the burning wrath of a thousand suns.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 41 points 3 months ago

This isn’t new. Websites have had higher prices when browsed with a Mac than when browsed with Linux.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 41 points 3 months ago

Interesting. Progressive private taxation.

[-] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

All this time I thought we'd eat the rich. Turns out they'll eventually just eat each other instead.

[-] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 28 points 3 months ago
[-] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Will? They have feasted upon us.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] huginn@feddit.it 18 points 3 months ago

Also known as wealth hoarding.

The rich get richer...

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think it's cute that people think the dynamic pricing is charging the poor less,

If you see someone shoplifting anything from Kroger or one of their subsidiaries, no you didn't. Now cause a distraction while that shoplifter does the Lord's work.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago

New fashion trend just dropped:

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 34 points 3 months ago

I would walk up to a homeless person and invite them to shop together. They can get some for themselves, and I can pay them while saving money

[-] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 34 points 3 months ago

What the hell is wrong with these people. How the fuck isn't this illegal and punishable by life imprisonment?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] grozzle@lemm.ee 33 points 3 months ago

Security cameras feed goes through an AI model to classify customers into wealth bands based on appearance, and continually updates the e-ink price labels nearest each customer accordingly.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's perfect. This is the market segmentation dream. Segment the market without having to spend the resources to create different versions of the product for each segment. Just change the price per segment! 🥰

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Kryptenx@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago

This is why so much money is being pumped into AI. This is the future and our politicians are too old to understand any of it. It isn't sentience you should be worried about folks.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

Yup too many people worry about what happens after AI gains sentience. When we need to worry about what happens before.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)

If this were just "it costs more to be rich" I'd be all for it, but more likely it's just about jacking up prices based on other factors. So it'll probably hit poor people, too, by charging more for things they want more, forcing them to give up other stuff they want less.

[-] radiohead37@lemmynsfw.com 29 points 3 months ago

I’m ok with higher income people paying higher taxes as long it is to the benefit of society. The case in this post it is just to line the pockets of extremely rich people.

[-] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Agreed. This is not a wealth tax, this is the rich realizing that they've squeezed nearly all they can out of the lower classes. They must now pivot to squeezing the middle class harder to continue building their dragonesque hoard.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 29 points 3 months ago

Airlines have been doing this for years.

Browser ID say you’re using a Mac? Higher price for you since you must have a higher income.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Khrux@ttrpg.network 29 points 3 months ago

I'm less worried about the idea that people are charged groceries based on income and more worried based on need.

Will the person who buys cigarettes twice a day pay more than the person who pays once a fortnight because it's clear that they require it more? Will the shopper of the family of 6 pay extra because they don't have the time or energy to drive to the next place that offers groceries without this system?

Introducing this based on income seems like a sugarcoating of something far more insidious.

[-] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

Thats not the way it will work. They will give discounts to the rich and charge the poor more. This is essentially what dollar general is. A added cost for being poor.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

More like... "We have established your low ability to complain and will be raising the price.... Suck it"

Can't wait till it gets to the Health industry.... Oh, wait...

[-] ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I am going to go to Kroger, speak with the manager, and scream loud enough while complaining for the entire store to hear, and never return the first time this happens.

I'm lucky enough to have options. A lot of small towns aren't. This idea needs to die fast, and it won't unless we are loud and borderline violent in pushing back against it. Tank their sales and reputations as quickly as possible.

Edit: because people think I hate th manager, changed wording. And yea, it sucks that I can't scream directly at the CEO, but if you've silent, this gets implemented with no friction at all, and they declare it a success.

[-] joenforcer@midwest.social 31 points 3 months ago

The barely above minimum wage manager doesn't make these decisions and all you gain from screaming at him is bringing down the mix of everyone around you.

The best way to handle this is to not shop at Kroger. Not when they start doing it. Now. Kroger won't get my money until they publicly admit this is a bad move and walk it back before it happens.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Subverb@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

From each according to their ability; to each according to their greed.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

the only innovation capitalism breeds is new ways to overprice stuff

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

Rich people are more stingy than poor people, change my mind.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Naich@lemmings.world 18 points 3 months ago

This seems like it should be illegal.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1379 points (98.8% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9756 readers
106 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS