this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1369 points (98.8% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9785 readers
271 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
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Costco, credit card promos, and loans are all opt-in, though; you have to initiate the transaction. You make the choice, you have some level of control (even if that is only walking away).

This, on the other hand, is making changes to a necessity that's offered to you based on something outside your control; you have no ability to control the transaction's decision, and you can't just walk away from buying food.

Yes, this is the game. But it's playing with people's lives; and whereas capitalism used to guarantee that companies would compete with one another to get prices as low as they could be, this AI "innovation"—coupled with the "not collusion, wink wink" of four megacorps controlling everything—means that something needs to be done. And it needs to be something more than just "shrug, capital gonna capital."

I recognize price controls would be a bit too much to hope for in this society, but demanding price transparency and equity seems like something we could actually manage.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dogsoahC@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If it would mean things getting cheaper for poor people, it wouldn't even be all that bad of an idea.

Well, except for the privacy issues, obv.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] RebekahWSD@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Ooh it absolutely won't be to make it cheaper on poor people. Can't drive to a further store? Costs more. Have a baby? All the baby stuff fifty percent more! It will only be used to screw poverty people who can't go further away to get better prices.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] krbr@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[–] afivedaystorm@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (6 children)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

The poverty line is a fucking joke.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›