Thread

1. flowerlad · 1790184294 · focus · HN ↗

   Why is this limited to groceries? I don't want to pay a different price than others for any category of item, not just groceries.

   Should gyms be able to charge me more based on my weight? Should airlines charge me more because they know I need to travel urgently? Should pharmacies charge me more for medication because they know I have a chronic condition? Should an online retailer charge me more because my browsing history suggests I'm willing to pay a premium? Should insurance companies charge me more because they know I'm unlikely to shop around?

   1. BeetleB · 1790185101 · focus · HN ↗

      If I'm selling to the wealthiest zip code, where the median house price is over $10M, should I be disallowed to charge higher prices? (Not for selling a house, but selling ordinary stuff to them).

      If I'm posting something for sale on Craigslist, and I don't put a price, is it OK if I quote different prices to different people who text me?

      I can see arguments both ways.

      1. kwyjibo1230 · 1790200361 · focus · HN ↗

         If you take charging higher grocery prices for richer people to its furthest point, you could end up with a system where every item costs Y% of their assets and the utility of a dollar is reduced the more you have. In effect, this would eliminate the relative value of having more money. For example, eggs could be priced at 0.02% of total assets, which means a poorer person with $2000 pays 40 cents, and a richer person with $1M pays $200.

         Now, would this go to its furthest point? Probably not, but it has the same, but smaller, effect of reducing the utility of money for richer people.

         In some scenarios, this actually might make sense. For example, in Finland, they use the day fine system where traffic ticket fines are based on the violator's daily disposable income. It's useful because this is a scenario where you want the punishment to feel equivalent to all income levels.

         For groceries, I don't think this should apply, because I think we would not want the act of purchasing food to equally punish all levels of wealth.

         This really becomes a philosophical discussion of defining price gouging and immoral market techniques. Some are clearly gouging, such as charging 2x plane fares for someone who has to fly to a funeral, or tripling the price of supplies after a natural disaster. Some are less clear.

         1. tancop · 1790231741 · focus · HN ↗

            That system would still have fixed prices that are the same for everyone, just in relative terms instead of absolute. It's the same as a "normal" economy with perfectly equal wealth. It would also break down if people can give each other money but that's a different problem.

            The problem is surveillance pricing uses a different percentage for each person to maximally exploit them. When the store thinks a person is hungry it will charge them 1% instead of 0.02 in your scale free economy, or $20 instead of 0.40 in our world. That's not fair no matter how you put it, and it's only possible in a big corp dominated market with no real competition.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.