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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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...
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.
From each according to their ability; to each according to their greed.
This seems like it should be illegal.
"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."
How would that even work though?
This sounds more like a shareholder soapy titwank than a real plan.
greedy workers hoarding all their income
Getting pretty sick of being bled dry by greedy wealth hoarders who have captured the regulatory system. Looking more and more like they WANT violence.
Now, if the extra paid were to go to help those less fortunate. To make the community better, etc. This may not be such a bad thing.
And if the "pay more" was based solely on how much money you have, not how much you're likely to want the thing being bought.
But capitalism has to capitalism and so the extra goes to rich assholes yacht and bunker funds.
It'd probably be the opposite. I bet they'd charge more to specific demographics - and common convenience store beverage brands would probably cost more for poorer people.
Plus, without controls, they'd probably end up charging different ethnic groups more for specific goods - they'd probably obfuscate it somehow, like to charge white people more for something they'd probably say they were doing it because you're a model train enthusiast or something. Or like "our consultants have told us that Tejano music fans are willing to pay a premium for coca cola" and so they jack up the price of coca cola for Mexicans without saying it's because they're mexican.
But yeah, I bet poorer people who have less free time would be "willing" to pay more for essentials because they often have less choice in where they get groceries. In other words you could force poor people with fewer options to accept jacked up prices whereas non-poor people may have the luxury of shopping around or paying someone else to get their groceries.
Also, if poor people were charged less there'd be a whole industry of personal grocery shoppers who'd get discounted prices for rich people and charge them a service fee in exchange.
So in the future, we pay the homeless in front of the store to get groceries for us for 5% of the price we would have to pay, with a 20% tip? Ah, wolt 2.0.
Ya'll, this already happens - wholesale and retail pricing vs consumer pricing. This exact principle is why many states refuse sales tax - those disproportionately affect poorer people because a lot of rich people can buy items through their LLCs and get bulk or retailer pricing.
Costco has memberships based on this - there's the regular and then the executive memberships. You spend more on the higher level memberships (essentially an income check) and also get more money back later. Credit card promos function like this. Credit scores and loans function like this.
Grocery stores (capital) will never give us a break on food (money). They will always try to find a way to make the poor pay even more. That's why it's called capitalism - all that is valued is capital and capital accrues more capital. That's the game.
The poverty line is a fucking joke.
The business model for many many many businesses is to give the rich a good deal to encourage more business, and to give the poor a mediocre to poor deal, because they have less options and the volume is lower.
This is just taxation, but way worse.
These corporations are so dumb. You need to start it as "discounts for those in poverty" and then gradually raise your prices overall until you get to the same dystopian hell.
This is why you shouldn't skip evil-marketing 101 in villain school people.
Imagine you have to always pay a certain proportion of your total wealth. Although this would literally make make the concept of money redundant.
I'm seriously going to smash these fucking things with my shopping cart if I ever see them. Sorry didn't see it not sorry.
No the digital price label on the doritos isnt gonna have access to your income data
What's the point of criticizing if nothing's going to change? Why not use your energy towards something that you actually have control over?
