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
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.”
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Being poor is expensive as hell. Ironically being richer makes things around you cheaper.
Which is why parents need to teach their kids about the realities of life. Modern life, specifically. And prioritize them accordingly.
Amen
If you’re on the billionaire whitelist, you pay even lower than the people in poverty.
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.
Then they get mad when people start stealing shit
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).
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.
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.
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.
don’t worry. prices will come down when albertsons and kroger merge. large corps are just more efficient.
So instead of taxing millionaires fairly… It’s come to this.
Interesting. Progressive private taxation.
All this time I thought we’d eat the rich. Turns out they’ll eventually just eat each other instead.
They will eat us
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.
So they’ll have to price small quantities low and go up from there to prevent TaskRabbits / Craigslisters from running this as a business
This isn’t new. Websites have had higher prices when browsed with a Mac than when browsed with Linux.
Plus returning visits. Airlines have been caught charging higher prices to someone who returns later to purchase an airfare that they previously looked at.
Are you saying products are not worth their price?
surprised pikachu
Basic economics is that what people are willing to pay dictates the prices.
We’re talking about predating people on inelastic demand, I’d say trying to apply Econ 101 here is a gross oversimplification
I agree it’s morally wrong, but to argue that “it’s not worth the price” when literally people are buying it at that price is not an oversimplification, but the definition, with exceptions (e.g. fraud).
We’re just used to things having a fixed price, at least for consumer goods, and it not being dependent on who is buying and selling it (which is interesting because that is something that didn’t exist until the mid 1800s, this is almost a reversion to the “old way” but just ridiculously unfair, imo).
What the poster said was a useless, sophomoric quip. Its just finding some way to be outraged, which seems to be the goal most of the time.
What the hell are you talking about?
Prior to the mid 1800s, there were no price tags, and people basically bartered the price on everything. It was the goal of the seller to get as much out of the buyer as possible. Variable pricing based on customer or time or whatever is nothing new. It’s actually probably older than fixed pricing.
Worth is subjective, specific to the individual, and even for an individual it is not some static number. If someone is willing to pay a certain price for something, that is how much it’s worth to them. Basic economics. Like I’m not stupid rich, so I would not buy a luxury vehicle that is north of 100k. I could probably scrape enough money together to put a down payment that would make it manageable for me, but that’s still not worth it to me. The price would have to be much lower to be worth it for me. However, for Bill Gates, that 100k is nothing and might be worth it to him. Hell, even just buying a new Honda, there is going to be a spread of how much people pay at a dealership based on what they believe it is “worth” or what the best price they can get is.
So, saying that by introducing variable pricing means their products are “not worth their price” is patently ridiculous, with even just a basic understanding of economics. I don’t agree with the practice, because back in the day it was one seller against one buyer, and now it would be some massive corporation with tons of data against a single buyer and that’s just ridiculously lopsided. But what the original poster said is just mindless outrage.
I hate capitalism
How old are you?
Old enough to know that capitalism is a flawed and outdated system.
Are you also old enough to realize that nothing is unlikely to change in your lifetime? Maybe you should use your time and energy towards something you can actually change or influence like yourself? Too many people that are depressed get caught in the politics rabbithole which further exacerbates their situation.
Recommend learning about: stoicism and history.
I’m healthy enough to have a sorta optimistic view of the future. I get therapy and I am extremely active in politics. In 2020, I studied nothing but political history. I know that capitalism is practically on its death bed, and if we don’t find a way to replace it, we’ll end up like the Roman Empire.
Gonna be honest, that’s a garbage comic. Was expecting something at least remotely funny.
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.
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.
I think the implication of screaming is more to let the whole store know just how exactly fucked this idea is, to get everyone talking about it. Yea the manager doesn’t make the decisions but if he hears no push back, the rich fucks at the top sure don’t.
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.
What an embarrassing existence. A society that COULD feed everyone in it decides to optimize the wealth of a tiny few and let millions starve to do it. What stupid stupid animals we are.
We’re not stupid animals, there are plenty of historical examples of societies allocating resources based on need rather than economic capability. We’re just living under the wrong system, and we need to evolve past that system towards something with actual democracy, where the people can decide democratically how the economy works and how the resources are allocated, where the workers aren’t under the orders of a dictatorial power structure 8 hours a day 5 days a week, but instead they collectively make the decisions and take the profits from the companies they own collectively.
We are stupid animals to have chosen this system… is what I was saying
We didn’t choose the system. I wasn’t handed a ballot when I was born, were you? Capitalism developed in specific historic and material conditions not by popular choice but by the logical consequences of those conditions.
No, but I have a sense of responsibility greater than just my personal needs. I can conceptualize problems that I didn’t create, are still ones that I’m responsible for dealing with.
