• nyan@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      13 days ago

      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.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days 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.

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          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.