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.”

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

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.

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.

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

Removed by mod

No, the existing “base line” price will stay as is for the poors. Those with slightly more money however…those will pay more.

Well since the government has all the info and has the postal service to get stuff to the people in need, why not just send this people some sort of stamps for free that lets them buy food, lets call it food stamps or something.

Jk, that would never work, let’s give all that sensitive data to some company that will definitely not leak, sell it or use it for some nefarious thing, because it will use AI.

We could wipe out food insecurity by just doing taxes properly. We shouldn’t tolerate for-profit businesses doing what the government should be doing.

What you’re describing is a more socialist/communist view on means based price adjustment.

This is real-time price gouging, which is good old-fashioned capitalism.

Looing forward to WIC and SNAP benefits being erased by price gouging on the needy.

If you think about it, it does not make financial sense for them to maintain this kind of system as a purely progressive price discrimination that charges richer people more money. I expect a lot of it would end up more like the Uber practice of charging more to people with low phone battery; they will identify who is more desperate, who has less choice but to buy the given product immediately, and charge them more. Because of how poverty works, that’s more likely the poor.

This is a major reason we still need cash and other ways of saying no to corporate surveillance; if we can’t maintain privacy when making purchases that information will be used as a weapon against us.

Yea, as a sort of reverse tax credit, it would be interesting. But as a profit driver, it’s nice and dystopian.

Is that… Is that not what it costs now?

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

So they’ll have to price small quantities low and go up from there to prevent TaskRabbits / Craigslisters from running this as a business

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.

Removed by mod

At this point in time if I saw a group of people just plundering the joint I would say they are doing nothing wrong. In fact, they are morally upright for doing that.

The price tags are digital? Whoops I’m so clumsy, constantly stumbling into the shelves and breaking the tags.

Or price manipulated by postal codes via geo-IP or your profile’s shipping or billing address.

Plus returning visits. Airlines have been caught charging higher prices to someone who returns later to purchase an airfare that they previously looked at.

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

Also known as wealth hoarding.

The rich get richer…

“Private taxation” is just price gouging.

Progressive

Oh you sweet summer child…

Amen

Being poor is expensive as hell. Ironically being richer makes things around you cheaper.

Fediverse has a real Hoffman vibe sometimes and I’m here for it

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?

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.

Hey normalize not posting pictures of people taken in public against their consent at their lowest moments. Like wtf, what if that was you?

It says a lot when your respect and compassion for another person turns off just because they are homeless or poor.

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.

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.

Because nobody has actually done this yet, this is just a question some senators asked in a hearing. It’s a weird question, but the answer doesn’t necessarily seem to be “no”.

I think it’s more of a “You have never bought this brand, so it’s going to be 50% off today because we want you to consume as much as possible and keep coming back”, not “You’re a gamer, so the Mtn Dew Game Fuel costs 50% more today”, or “You’re rich, so everything costs 3x as much”.

Companies already do this with their apps, issuing coupons to try to expose certain customers to more products. Dynamic pricing just seems like a less transparent and ultimately worse way to do it. It essentially kills couponing as an art form, and I am quite good at shaving 40-60% off of a grocery bill.

If this model succeeds, I worry about what it will evolve into.