A Boring Dystopia

9785 readers

262 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

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--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

givesomefucks@lemmy.world

1369

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. (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago by LengAwaits@lemmy.world to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world

259 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean I don't think this is fair, but I also don't think this will ever happen in this way. If something like this happened, it would be to increase the price for poorer people to drive them away, because poorer people tend to use more resources and drive away rich people.

Part of the issue with real goods pricing, especially food, is that it directly reflects the stock market. The word "stock" itself comes from "livestock." A farmer in the 1800s predicted many peaks/troughs of the stock market based on solar cycles - the Benner cycle. https://www.therationalinvestor.com/blog/how-the-benner-cycle-predicts-100-years-of-market-movement

Owning physical stock is what the stock market is kinda based on, plus a weird family feud popularity contest and insider trading.

So to regulate the price of goods, we will.have ti regulate the stock market. To regulate the stock market, we will have to regulate the ownership of companies, because that's what the stock market also is - ownership in a company. I'm all for mandating every company be a cooperatively owned, worker owned company. I'd vote for that TODAY.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I also don't think this will ever happen in this way

Isn't it already happening, though? Maybe not for necessities, at least not yet; but if you're researching travel, the common wisdom is to research through private browsers to be sure that they can't jack up the price on you to create an artificial incentive to buy before the price goes up again. If you are booking certain things like rental cars, booking through a VPN based in a country with a favorable exchange rate or lower number of tourists can sometimes get you a preferential rate. If capitalists are willing to deploy that sort of thing online, you can bet they're hoping for the ability to do so in real life.

I'm all for mandating every company be a cooperatively owned, worker owned company. I'd vote for that TODAY.

Same. Even if we mandated that all companies' voting shares include 50% plus one vote shares controlled by employees, it would be a huge step in the right direction.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but you'll notice that's something you have to work hard to bypass capitalism to do. It's not something capitalists are actually offering or would program into their algorithms, because it's directly against anything capitalism values or rewards. They are not here to provide a service. They are here to take money, to make capital. Which is often why they make the system less efficient, eg Turbo Tax. Giving a discount eats into their profit margins, so they'd rather lose the customer than lose the profit margin, because their resources are all finite. Yes there may be a discount in some countries, but within the same store it is very unlikely they will reward poverty by giving it a discount and eating into their profit margins. It just doesn't make sense. This meme is propaganda to upset the middle class towards the poor.

And yes I'd take ANYTHING approaching the limit of worker owned companies. Also if every election could be approval based voting or ranked choice.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Giving a discount eats into their profit margins, so they'd rather lose the customer than lose the profit margin, because their resources are all finite.

So why do stores have sales, ever? No, although groceries are low-margin items, they still retain high enough markups that they can still make money even with discounts, particularly when offering loss leaders. And with this technology, they can optimize for both price and customer retention, by keeping a price artificially inflated for those who can afford it and only lowering it when they're at risk of losing a customer.

Which sounds like a good idea, right? But it's not going to be accurate, ever. They're only ever going to miscategorize people and charge single moms double.

And let's be honest, it won't be used to give poor people discounts. It'll be used to raise prices for middle class people.

Also if every election could be approval based voting or ranked choice.

Now you're really singing my song.