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.
A manager of a Kroger in a metro area is pulling above 6 figures after their quarterly bonuses are added in.
Kroger shutdown in all the small towns around here years ago. Most of them left are in the upper class part of towns. I haven’t been to one in a decade or more. I have no doubt they wont be the last to stick another tax on people.
This idea has been around for many years and it’s already in place in many places. Do you think that Amazon shows you the same price for a pair of shoes that it shows me? There’s no reason that it should, if the programmers don’t want it to.
Sometimes the scam is a little bit deeper. If we go back to Amazon, for example, you often find different vendors that are selling the same good, because you can look at the pictures and see that in fact it’s the same product, but the vendors are selling it for different prices. Who decides which vendor you see first? The Amazon developers do, of course.
Anyway, those are Amazon examples, but we should pay attention to them because the problem already happens, and it’s not hard to set up the scam, and a protest alone is insufficient. Their needs to be massive legal penalties for any company caught running this type of price fixing scam.
Equality!
No, the existing “base line” price will stay as is for the poors. Those with slightly more money however…those will pay more.
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.
I don’t think their “No” was a disagreement, but a confirmation of your second line. https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/88502/how-to-agree-with-a-negative-statement-with-yes-or-with-no Sometimes, language can be a tricky tool to wield.
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.
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.
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.
Yea, as a sort of reverse tax credit, it would be interesting. But as a profit driver, it’s nice and dystopian.
Have y’all realized it’s never been about supply and demand yet?
It is about supply and demand, this is just an attempt to fine tune it to the individual level rather than regional or market level.
It’s fucked, basically an attempt to reduce purchasing power of everyone to low income levels so employers can offer large salaries without needing to actually allow wealth to transfer because of them (assuming the entire economy adopted this and had perfect information to set the price fully proportional to income).
But it is all about supply and demand but attempting to pull information about each individual’s supply and demand for money itself into the equation.
Though income is only part of the story. Commitments, cost of living, other household income, needs, and other expenditures also play a big role in the value someone sees in their money. Eg, if three people make the same but one likes to always have a brand new sports car, one is content with anything that gets them from a to b, and the third bikes everywhere, they’ll have different amounts of money available for everything else. Their car payments affect their demand for money while their salary (and other income) is the supply.
New fashion trend just dropped:
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.
You can take pictures of people in public:
I didn’t say to make it illegal. I didn’t say it was illegal. I said to “normalize” (a social more) not doing so especially when the person has no choice except to live in the public. Especially when they
- wouldn’t appreciate it being taken or consent to it,
- it’s not particularly newsworthy,
- it’s a low moment in their lives, and
- it won’t benefit them and will benefit the picture taker/poster financially or otherwise
Like we don’t make picking your nose in public illegal, there’s just a social more that that’s gross behavior. That’s what I’m asking for - that mistreatment of people be seen as gross.
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. And just because it’s technically legal doesn’t mean you’re not an asshole for doing it.
It called being a decent person.
There it is, the standard lemmy-tier moral superiority post.
You know nothing about this person or the context of this photo. Someone using their picture as an example of dirty clothes and the look of someone who is homeless isn’t going to make their life worse.
That’s sad that asking for better behavior is looked at with derision on your part.
Agree to disagree. I don’t really feel like discussing further with you.
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.
