Ir you’re on the billionaire whitelist, you pay even lower than the people in poverty.
Consumer, we have detected that you are above the poverty line. The 99¢ price printed on this Arizona tea can only applies to those below the poverty line. Your total comes to $3.67.
Submitted 3 months ago by LengAwaits@lemmy.world to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/600ba553-fb15-42f4-89d7-34bf1f9fd2ec.png
Comments
frankgrimeszz@lemmy.world 3 months ago
anachronist@midwest.social 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 3 months ago
Yikes
9point6@lemmy.world 3 months ago
This way maybe a banana could cost $10
Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Is that… Is that not what it costs now?
Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
I can pick up a bunch for 1.59€ at Aldi. The catch is that they are not ripe yet, so I have to leave them on the kitchen counter for 3 days before eating them.
mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
10 ruppees here About 1/80 th of that price
Chef_Boyardee@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Well, I get paid 25¢ to eat bananas, so I win.
Mellibird@lemm.ee 3 months ago
I get a bushel for 88¢ where I live.
Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 3 months ago
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.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
So they’ll have to price small quantities low and go up from there to prevent TaskRabbits / Craigslisters from running this as a business
veganpizza69@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Interesting. Progressive private taxation.
LengAwaits@lemmy.world 3 months ago
All this time I thought we’d eat the rich. Turns out they’ll eventually just eat each other instead.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 months ago
No, this is the rich trying to rest the middle class.
huginn@feddit.it 3 months ago
Also known as wealth hoarding.
The rich get richer…
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 months ago
“Private taxation” is just price gouging.
grue@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Progressive
Oh you sweet summer child…
eltrain123@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Progressive taxes are not the same as ‘progressive’ in terms of social politics.
Progressive taxes are how our tax brackets work. The more you make, the more you pay. This is them saying private companies will use progressive taxation as their model for pricing goods.
theparadox@lemmy.world 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 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.
theparadox@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I think perfect competition is impossible. The incentive is not to compete fairly, it’s to maximize profits and the most effective ways to maximize profits are anticompetitive, exploitative, or both. Anyone arguing for a society built around such a system is either naive or trying to buy more time with false hopes.
Virtually every condition in the ideal scenario is a barrier for profit, and I don’t think any civilization has managed even a single one of those conditions. There will always be actors looking to take advantage of any loopholes or create unregulated markets.
It’s just not a system that is sustainable. The incentives are simply wrong and the society built around those incentives can’t maintain a system of perfect conditions even if one were to exist.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I think it’s cute that people think the dynamic pricing is charging the poor less,
wondrous_strange@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Amen
Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Being poor is expensive as hell. Ironically being richer makes things around you cheaper.
imaginepayingforred@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Which is why parents need to teach their kids about the realities of life. Modern life, specifically. And prioritize them accordingly.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Fediverse has a real Hoffman vibe sometimes and I’m here for it
AeonFelis@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Charging the poor more is, first and foremost, stupid. Giving them bad products and/or services that will cost them more in the long run? That I can see. But you never want to charge them more upfront. You’ll always want to charge the rich more, because the rich have more money and are more willing to spend it (when it benefits them), and you want them to give you that money.
Joel Spolsky wrote a great post about this two decades ago (and it’s still relevant today). The idea is as follows:
Lets say you have two potential customers - one rich who can afford to buy your product for $2 and one poor who can only afford to buy it for $1. If you charge $1 you’ll be able to sell it to both of them and get $2. If you charge $2 you’ll only sell to the rich - also getting $2.
Joel says that if you find a way (e.g. - by creating different versions) to sell it to the rich customer for $2 and the poor customer for $1 - you’ll get $3. Which is more than $2.
You, on the other hand, suggest that it’s going to get offered to the rich customer for $1 and the poor customer for $2. But then the poor customer won’t be able to afford it. They won’t be it or maybe even steal it - either way you won’t get $2 from them. You’ll only get the $1 from the rich customer.
$1 is less than $3. It’s even less than $1. If you want to earn money - this is the worst outcome. Why do you think capitalists hate the poor more than they love money?
Boomkop3@reddthat.com 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
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
This isn’t new. Websites have had higher prices when browsed with a Mac than when browsed with Linux.
TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 3 months ago
Or being assigned to different ZIP codes via IP or your profile’s shipping or billing address.
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 months ago
SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 3 months ago
A few months later the policy is quietly abandoned after customers kept dirty clothes in their car to wear when shopping to game the algorithm. The presence of so many poor looking people attracted the homeless and criminality, what caused complaints and lowered the brand value.
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Hey normalize not posting pictures of people taken in public against their consent at their lowest moments. Like wtf, what if that was you?
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 months ago
You can take pictures of people in public:
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I don’t think that’ll save you from having data harvested from your cell phone.
That said, turning off location tracking might become a habit while browsing the aisles.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Remember the outcry over the various Kanye items–$100 white t-shirt, etc…? It’s all coming full circle. In a few years, cities’ homeless populations will be wearing crisp Brooks Brothers suits and its wealthy assholes will be in disheveled streetwear.
Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 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.
cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Airlines run by teenage girls? LOL
Next thing you can’t book a first class ticket if you are using Android because you’re poor 😂
MehBlah@lemmy.world 3 months ago
What if your browser user agent is set to YO Momma. I did this years ago for some reason(pot) and forgot about it until one day the error generated by a website had YO Momma in it and I had to know why.
Miaou@jlai.lu 3 months ago
Was the point to make tracking you easier?
psmgx@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Anyone using custom user agents is a tech bro and they have money – give them MacBook tier prices
Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 3 months ago
If done properly this could wipe out food insecurity issues for the most needy.
It won’t be done properly. It never is when left to the corporations.
aphonefriend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
No, the existing “base line” price will stay as is for the poors. Those with slightly more money however…those will pay more.
Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Yep, that’s what an MBA would decide, so that’s likely what’s going to happen.
That’s why I said in my second line:
It won’t be done properly. It never is when left to the corporations.
But yet you STILL opened your reply with a flat ‘no’, proving you only ever bothered to read a single sentence of my reply so I’m downvoting you, blocking you, and forgetting you ever existed.
Omnificer@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Yea, as a sort of reverse tax credit, it would be interesting. But as a profit driver, it’s nice and dystopian.
Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I guess food stamps kind of do this but they are so hard to actually be granted. We need something automatic that is specifically geared to solving food insecurity for the most needy.
Kryptenx@lemmy.world 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 3 months ago
Yup too many people worry about what happens after AI gains sentience. When we need to worry about what happens before.
AeroLemming@lemm.ee 3 months ago
It’s because what happens post-singularity is dramatic and flashy, but what’s happening now is depressing and boring. AI is being used and will continue to be used to oppress people and extract as much value from them as possible, but post-singularity AI might launch all the nukes!
In all likelihood, post-singularity AI will probably just do what current AI does to screw people over, but even better.
Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Almost no movies have been put out that shows the threat of AI used to socially manipulate. That is the real threat right there.
Bots can radicalize people into thinking they have a deep, intimate friend when it is just an LLM trained to slowly turn them into white nationalists.
orcrist@lemm.ee 3 months ago
This is not AI. You don’t need AI to create a system that does this. All you need to do is link together some customer data with pricing data.
But I don’t blame you for falling for the scam. People are getting rich by pretending that AI is much more capable than it actually is. In reality, what do we have? We have systems that can generate text that sounds fairly natural but has lots of errors in it. We have systems that can generate pictures that look okay. That’s about it. That’s what AI has given us in the past 2 years. All of the other stuff, all of the formulas and databases and spreadsheets, that’s been around for decades.
Kryptenx@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Taken too literally to this post in a vacuum, yes. Taken with the news that Kroger was thinking about dynamic pricing, don’t delude yourself into thinking LLMs are the extent of what the “AI” (stupid term but let’s discuss ideas and not the words) goals are. The real ultimate goal is to be able to mine the near infinite amount of consumer data available and turn that into increased profits. Dynamic pricing will be a piece of it and I believe this cartoon illustrates a piece of a complex subject in an easy to digest manner.
You and I both agree that LLMs aren’t shit except for a narrow window of usefulness, mainly a distraction, and the data shows consumers don’t really like “AI”. So why is there still so much cash in “AI”? Maybe you think it’s a market pump, but there is cash in nvda because it’s undeniable GPUs will continue to be utilized in huge numbers for server farms crunching associations. There is cash in the LLM gatekeepers because those firms are large enough and far enough along the path to eventually do what filthy capitalists want with this data. First it was algorithms that prioritized engagement at any cost. Today it is LLMs. And tomorrow it is machine learning on your data and subconscious psychology in order to extract maximum profit possible from you. They’ve milked data-based advertising to the point of diminishing returns and the next step is to exploit us all using the data most make freely available out of convenience so that line continue to go up. I sure hope I’m wrong, but I’m a filthy fucking capitalist and don’t think that’s the case.
Hope to fuck we instill decent judges across this country in the coming years because honestly our best hope is to outlaw most of these practices by showing that they can’t be free of unintended bias and are therefore inherently not objective enough to be used to set prices, etc. it works in a physical store but how do you prevent dynamic pricing online? Especially with an internet that looks like it will become extremely segmented
BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 3 months ago
That and the systematic replacement of middle management by AI with no regard to human feelings, needs, emotion whatsoever. Pretty much what Amazon is doing to its delivery drivers already.
Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Middle management already has zero regard for human feelings so at least you won’t have to deal with clashing personalities or vanity bosses anymore.
I say bring on the AI management and wait till the board members see how effectively ALL C-suites can be replaced by AI.
gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
AI has the potential to improve efficiency. That includes the potential to make all forms of evil more efficient.
nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
That and the systematic replacement of middle management by AI with no regard to human feelings, needs, emotion whatsoever.
So, you’re say that, in general, it’s an improvement? /s
grozzle@lemm.ee 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 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! 🥰
T00l_shed@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Nah, they will lobby to no longer have price tags, so that it will just appear at the cash with arbitrary numbers.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
The Checkbook Strikes Back
“I was stuck waiting at checkout for another geriatric millennial to ask the price for every. single. item! As if they can’t afford it, despite all evidence to the contrary. Of fucking course they didn’t have Zelle. And then they left half of it at the register, in everyone’s way!”
samus12345@lemmy.world 3 months ago
If this were the case, all the smart shoppers would go to the store wearing dirty rags.
aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 3 months ago
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 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 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 middle class harder to continue building their dragonesque hoard.
ieatpwns@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Then they get mad when people start stealing shit
UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 3 months ago
More like… “We have established your low ability to complain and will be raising the price… Suck it”
Subverb@lemmy.world 3 months ago
From each according to their ability; to each according to their greed.
iAvicenna@lemmy.world 3 months ago
the only innovation capitalism breeds is new ways to overprice stuff
Snapz@lemmy.world 2 months ago
“If you’re starving, we’ll use an API with your bank to charge you $10 more than your entire net worth. In that moment we’ll offer you a credit card with a 37% adjustable interest rate that only adjusts up to cover the overage (but credit card takes 6-8 business days to process, so you will go over). We’ll then be left with no choice but to also process an overdraft fee on your bank account with daily penalties for the overage since you are being irresponsible.
And we’ll use AI to generate a picture of everyone you love in a room laughing at you, because fuck you. By overdrafting, you triggered a clause in our user agreement (that you agreed to) which states that we can charge you whatever we think it’s fair for that picture. The picture will then regenerate each month, indefinitely, on an auto subscription, unless you cancel by hand delivering a paper cancellation form to our cancellation office in Guam.”
trslim@pawb.social 2 months ago
If corpos start dynamically charging for shit, im gonna start to dynamically disassemble they’re stores with vodka, some paper and a lighter.
Zacryon@feddit.org 2 months ago
Are you saying products are not worth their price?
surprised pikachu
Takios@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
Dynamic pricing should be illegal. A price for a product should be the same for everyone and not dependant on their income, which smartphone brand they use or how much yoghurt they eat per day.
Naich@lemmings.world 3 months ago
This seems like it should be illegal.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 months ago
How would that even work though?
This sounds more like a shareholder soapy titwank than a real plan.
theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
This sounds very illegal.
cornshark@lemmy.world 3 months ago
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 3 months ago
greedy workers hoarding all their income
teamevil@lemmy.world 2 months ago
And now I’m stealing the product
PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Rich people are more stingy than poor people, change my mind.
v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 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 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 3 months ago
Kroger also does that
jpeps@lemmy.world 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.
BlueLineBae@midwest.social 3 months ago
I’ve been shopping at shitty Jewels all my life and I’m moving to an area where I can choose Jewel or Mariano’s. I was super excited to find this out until they announced as part of the merger, they would sell off a bunch of stores most of which are Mariano’s including the one I would have started going to. I Reeeeeeally hope the merger doesn’t go through.
Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
How is that legal?
cfi@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Big Y in the Northeast does that well. That’s probably the biggest reason why I don’t regularly shop there anymore
curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
ShopRite by me is doing that.
We mostly stopped buying at ShopRite (mostly, because there are some things we can only get there due to dietary restrictions, and they carry things others don’t).
I don’t think we were the only ones though, because that was gone the last time we were there. It could also be due to the Stop and Shop being “digital coupons only” and being forced to close recently. Don’t know for certain. It could just have been a test run for them and they will bring it back later, no idea.
Either way, I have no interest in having their app on my phone. I toyed with the idea of using a cheap tablet I’ve got and don’t touch to install the app on it and connect to in store wifi only.
Sabata11792@ani.social 3 months ago
If I have to install spyware or open a link at a physical location, my top priority is to leave.
ZeroTwo@lemmy.world 3 months ago
A local grocery store has kinda done something like this? Just not as extreme as needing an app to shop. They literally took out all the coupons from the mail ads and they have you install their app for coupons. Which makes you run through hoops to install and make an account. I tried doing it in store but I gave up because of how annoying it was and all the information they needed. Just to used a god damn coupon… I miss the little red coupon dispensers in stores.