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.
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.
Since surveillance pricing mostly punishes higher earners, I thought it was good for socialist purposes.
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.
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.