this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
28 points (100.0% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9651 readers
482 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] imaginepayingforred@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Which is why parents need to teach their kids about the realities of life. Modern life, specifically. And prioritize them accordingly.

[–] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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."

[–] jpeps@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] frankgrimeszz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If you’re on the billionaire whitelist, you pay even lower than the people in poverty.

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 2 points 2 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.

[–] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Then they get mad when people start stealing shit

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 2 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.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. Progressive private taxation.

[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

They will eat us

[–] gearheart@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

So instead of taxing millionaires fairly... It's come to this.

[–] Steak@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 2 months ago

don't worry. prices will come down when albertsons and kroger merge. large corps are just more efficient.

[–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 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

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This isn’t new. Websites have had higher prices when browsed with a Mac than when browsed with Linux.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 months ago

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

[–] afivedaystorm@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (6 children)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] dotned@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

How do they know what my income is?

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

If you aren't 100% committed to data privacy all the time, which is damn hard to do and live in society, they could probably tell how many pimples you have on your ass and charge accordingly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are you saying products are not worth their price?

surprised pikachu

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Basic economics is that what people are willing to pay dictates the prices.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We're talking about predating people on inelastic demand, I'd say trying to apply Econ 101 here is a gross oversimplification

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What the hell are you talking about?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

New fashion trend just dropped:

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 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?

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

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This way maybe a banana could cost $10

[–] Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is that... Is that not what it costs now?

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

10 ruppees here About 1/80 th of that price

[–] RickAstleyfounddead@lemy.lol 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Haha but your salary is also 1/80000

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

never gonna give you "up". EVER!

[–] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] joenforcer@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mostNONheinous@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›