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
If corpos start dynamically charging for shit, im gonna start to dynamically disassemble they’re stores with vodka, some paper and a lighter.
Then spend almost the rest of your life in prison. What a brilliant strategy.
Come on, live a little!
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.
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.
A manager of a Kroger in a metro area is pulling above 6 figures after their quarterly bonuses are added in.
And has zero influence on corporate policy.
But enacts corporate policy.
This sounds very illegal.
“I will make it legal”
-Capitalists since before Reagan, but especially and most successfully during and after Reagan.
They’ve literally made political bribery as legal as
apple pieassault rifles, you think some consumer protection laws will stand in the way of their greed?
don’t worry. prices will come down when albertsons and kroger merge. large corps are just more efficient.
While the sarcasm in your comment is painfully obvious, certain people, like the average fox news host (aka psychopaths), will read it and see the upvotes and think that we are up voting because we agree. We don’t, we are up voting their dark humor.
Also, fuck you fox news. Fuck you very much.I actually do worry about this. Im such a sarcastic person and I can’t keep from doing it on the web but I wonder if every comment is going to birth a new cult. And this comment I want to be clear is 100% not sarcastic, I truly feel this way. nowadays is nuts.
Ok, look… I know it’s not technically a rule, but we’re going to need you to just start putting “/s” at the end of all your comments. Just add it as a signature line so it shows up on everything, just to be safe. You’ll just have to consider it like some kind of magic charm or ward to prevent something like The_Donald from being conjured up.
Ill staple it to my tps reports.
So elegantly written - thank you!
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
"If you’re starving, we’ll use an API with your bank to charge you $10 more than your entire net worth. In that moment we’ll offer you a credit card with a 37% adjustable interest rate that only adjusts up to cover the overage (but credit card takes 6-8 business days to process, so you will go over). We’ll then be left with no choice but to also process an overdraft fee on your bank account with daily penalties for the overage since you are being irresponsible.
And we’ll use AI to generate a picture of everyone you love in a room laughing at you, because fuck you. By overdrafting, you triggered a clause in our user agreement (that you agreed to) which states that we can charge you whatever we think it’s fair for that picture. The picture will then regenerate each month, indefinitely, on an auto subscription, unless you cancel by hand delivering a paper cancellation form to our cancellation office in Guam."
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.
And now I’m stealing the product
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.
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.
