this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
209 points (98.6% liked)

Canada

11874 readers
759 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

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

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago

I think those factors you mention depend on the specific store, not on whether it uses surveillance pricing.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

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.