OTTAWA — Today, NDP Leader Avi Lewis announced the tabling of a motion in Parliament to ban “surveillance pricing,” the use of personal data to charge Canadians different prices for the same products.
Only if the money circulates back into the economy here rather than being tied up in some exec’s offshore bank account. Plus, “higher” earners doesn’t mean high earners—the burden will disproportionately end up falling on nominally middle-class people who don’t have time to shop around.
That’s not quite true. A firm wants to sell at a higher price to a customer who can afford it but also sell at a lower price (above cost) to one who can’t afford the “regular price” but would buy it cheaper, thus maximizing profit both via margin and volume. There’s nothing socialist about it.
While surveillance pricing maximizes profit for the business owner, which is optimized capitalism, it also reduces the gap between wealthier buyers and poorer buyers, which is a socialist purpose. So we’re making a distinction here between business owners, wealthier buyers and poorer buyers. Now I don’t know how and where exactly left-leaning parties are looking to reduce the wealth gaps these days. The gap with business owners or the gap with wealthier buyers? Both I suppose, but with surveillance pricing, there’s a tradeoff.
Comrade, socialism isn’t about reducing wealth inequality within the classes who get paid for their labour. Whether that’s labour done for a decent salary or minimum hourly wage. Socialism is about people getting paid what the businesd owners withold above what people get paid. Tackling intra-working class wealth equality is a misc matter for socialism or perhaps a communist matter that is counterproductive to tackle before we’ve gotten our surplus value back.
E: But I do understand your point about how algo pricing can provide more product to wider parts of society by essentially flattening their purchase power and therefore real incomes. That’s actually a very interesting perspective. If we didn’t have the other problem I mentioned this could be interesting to consider as a way to distribute produced goods and services.
Yes, “flattening purchase power” is how I would summarize socialism in a few words. Because many working class people actually do make more than many small business owners. Based on an NDP business owner and other people I know.
Since surveillance pricing mostly punishes higher earners, I thought it was good for socialist purposes.
Only if the money circulates back into the economy here rather than being tied up in some exec’s offshore bank account. Plus, “higher” earners doesn’t mean high earners—the burden will disproportionately end up falling on nominally middle-class people who don’t have time to shop around.
I think those factors you mention depend on the specific store, not on whether it uses surveillance pricing.
That’s not quite true. A firm wants to sell at a higher price to a customer who can afford it but also sell at a lower price (above cost) to one who can’t afford the “regular price” but would buy it cheaper, thus maximizing profit both via margin and volume. There’s nothing socialist about it.
While surveillance pricing maximizes profit for the business owner, which is optimized capitalism, it also reduces the gap between wealthier buyers and poorer buyers, which is a socialist purpose. So we’re making a distinction here between business owners, wealthier buyers and poorer buyers. Now I don’t know how and where exactly left-leaning parties are looking to reduce the wealth gaps these days. The gap with business owners or the gap with wealthier buyers? Both I suppose, but with surveillance pricing, there’s a tradeoff.
Comrade, socialism isn’t about reducing wealth inequality within the classes who get paid for their labour. Whether that’s labour done for a decent salary or minimum hourly wage. Socialism is about people getting paid what the businesd owners withold above what people get paid. Tackling intra-working class wealth equality is a misc matter for socialism or perhaps a communist matter that is counterproductive to tackle before we’ve gotten our surplus value back.
E: But I do understand your point about how algo pricing can provide more product to wider parts of society by essentially flattening their purchase power and therefore real incomes. That’s actually a very interesting perspective. If we didn’t have the other problem I mentioned this could be interesting to consider as a way to distribute produced goods and services.
Yes, “flattening purchase power” is how I would summarize socialism in a few words. Because many working class people actually do make more than many small business owners. Based on an NDP business owner and other people I know.