“A government by the people, for the people” died with Citizens United. The American people and our interests are not who our Congress people are serving
I think it will go the way it usually does with shit like this.
They will rebrand it with some new shitty marketing term. Something like “quiet quitting”. Then the media pundits and “journalists” will start using the word commonly, having discussions with experts about how the bad thing isn’t really THAT bad; just misunderstood. Then it will be rapidly adopted and promoted by businesses, and be exponentially more predatory and worse than it began conceptually, as you stated.
That’s definitely the cycle of American capitalism and “innovation” these days.
It's true that the US isn't very democratic. But it's also true that most people are wrong about or misunderstand this issue... Dynamic pricing is fine and it will often help you anyway.
Online this has been used for many years already. Random-online-store.com would not be paying google for your search history, if it didn't mean they could make money of it.
How about a product is worth something based on inputs and margin, and not whatever they can squeeze for it with whatever power they have over you?
EDIT: lmao they go butthurt and blocked me after responding saying I hate poor people. Yeah sorry, but if you truly believe this surveillance pricing will actually lead to reduced prices for some and not just marginal gains across income spectrums as data sharing grows allowing cartel pricing through a data middleman like with RealPage, I have a fucking bridge on Mars to sell you
Why do you hate poor people? We know exactly who bears the cost of centralized price fixing the economics subreddit. This isn't the populist subreddit.
> How about a product is worth something based on inputs and margin
That incentivizes inefficiency because if you want to earn higher margins, you need to spend more money to make the product.
That dramatically reduces the incentive for making things people value. The ability for consumers to pay more than simply inputs+margin is a way for them to incentivize businesses to make something more important to them.
> and not whatever they can squeeze for it with whatever power they have over you?
As long as we start actually enforcing anti-trust laws, that just translates to "what the customer thinks it's worth paying". The producer has a minimum price that will incentivize them to make something. The consumer has a maximum price at which they'll buy most things in a competitive market. Setting prices based on the producer trying to set a price that the consumer will pay is a way to find the overlapping point of a mutually tolerance price in which incentives are therefore aligned and economic resources go most toward things that are most valued by society. Nothing about that is inherently "squeezing power". That comes from other unrelated issues like that our anti-trust laws aren't enforced or that are laws cushion businesses, investors and executives from risk more than they do reward or that we literally grant temporary monopolies. Otherwise, it's a pretty narrow set of things like certain healthcare decisions where a person might have no reasonable alternative in that moment.
It is embarrassing that people are posting things like this in r/economics, when it should be immediately obvious that the number of substitutes has zero impact on equilibrium pricing without specific assumptions about the costs of those substitutes.
I did something like this a couple weeks ago at QFC. The price of what I was getting doubled from the week before I just left it on the self-checkout and left. I was literally there for one item and it wasn't even necessary but I felt like they were totally fucking me.
This is a bot. 737 contributions in 1 month (account age). Majority of comments assent.
My post above was automatically removed because it was too short, so here I am making it longer, unnecessarily so that I can maybe inform 1-3 real life people that enshitification of the internet is here lalalalalalalala, hope this is long enough for you paste eaters, but if not here I am to say llalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal
Again
Literally the same post on r/technology a few hours ago also. Please don’t be like that bottom feeder sub.
In top of that, what the actual fuck does this article have to do with actual Economics?!? Please let’s not turn this sub into the same shithole as the rest of Reddit.
It's just the type of dumb rage bait that gets dumb people really engaged, which is what most of reddit is turning in to. Is surveillance pricing a real thing? Not really outside of a few gimmicky bars. Sure, we can pass some performative bans, but it's basically a nonexistent problem.
But man, if I was stupid and thought this was a real issue, I'd be upvoting the shit out of this and typing out some very very hyped up angry comments. So it'll do well to drive clicks on reddit.
Serious question, why would anyone want digital pricing or dynamic pricing?
The only reason I could possibly think of is you own a grocery store. The workers there don't benefit from it. I doubt they're going to ever drop prices. This is for surge pricing.
So what person would actually want this?? It's already hard enough when I go to the grocery store to figure out what the price is between member pricing at Kroger, and Safeway,. Digital online coupons. Why do we need a third variable to spin in.
I'm sure I'll get downvoted to hell here... But I certainly don't have a problem with it.
You already have dynamic pricing in most things you buy. Airlines have been doing it for a very long time, but of course basically everything you buy online is dynamically priced. This isn't some magic new thing.
And remember that the goal of dynamic pricing is getting you to buy stuff. Everyone assumes that it means you'll pay more. But that's not really true. Whether Amazon makes $1 on your sale or $2... They still make more than $0. Their goal is to make the sale and sometimes dynamic pricing lowers prices to encourage you to buy.
Also, again in the theme of nothing being new here, companies were already doing this with coupons and direct incentives to you. You just didn't care because you could see them and understand them.
But the bigger question is basically why we care so much about stopping in-person stores from doing this. Why is it fair that Amazon can dynamically price stuff but that Kroger can't? Why can Walmart online do it but not Walmart in the store?
This is just one of those issues that people misunderstand a bit and get all fired up about. But it doesn't really matter very much overall and you already have it most places.
And even if it could know that why would you want any business to know your financial status?
And also wouldn't rich people then game the system? Because rich people wouldn't want to pay higher prices either?
Would this require that you share your filed tax return with the company?
If it's a simple matter of checking a box on your membership card and then swiping your membership card, wouldn't everyone check that box?
This has to be one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard when it comes to how to implement it.
I'm a software developer by trade, and if somebody pitched me this idea, I would give them about a 50-year estimate on how to actually implement it so that it was correct.
Likely none of that. They'd just model your propensity to spend on things and augment pricing based on you profile. They don't actually care how much money you earn, just how much you're willing to spend. A frugal millionaire is worth less to them than a spendy poor person.
To contextualize this, let's say you always buy name brand cheerios. You've never once bought the Kroger brand version even tho it's $3 cheaper. So your box of cheerios is $6. I, on the other hand, have never bought name brand cheerios. They're double the price compared to what I get! Well Kroger could in theory dynamically price the name brand cheerios so when I shop, they're only $4. Hmm, name brand for only $1 more than the Kroger brand? Alright, I'll give that a try. Kroger has no idea what kind fo money we make, but they know who needs a nudge to buy up to the name brand.
Like someone else mentioned, they already do this in a way. You know at checkout how you get coupons printed out? They're not the same every time. They're personalized to you based on your profile. They're using your behavior data to customize pricing with the goal or incentivising a purchase action from you. Starbucks? Extra stars if you buy a muffin this week? That's because they know you don't buy food items so they are trying to get you to give it a go. The muffin purchasers aren't getting that deal. It's all personalized pricing based on user data.
I don’t understand the hatred of digital price tags if they aren’t engaging in dynamic pricing. Aldi has had digital tags for years and there hasn’t been issues. In fact, I purchased something the other day and it rang up for less than the digital shelf tag. Dynamic pricing is a racket, but big retailers have already been doing versions of price manipulation for some time. Online prices are often less than in store pricing.
Most places price match their online prices to in store, but Walmart no longer does this. I went to buy a product I had researched online and the price was three times higher in the store (not digital price tag related). The cashier said they wouldn’t price match, so I ended up having to do a pick up order to get the lower price. More labor was involved in that scenario, thus costing Walmart more money overall only to charge me less. It makes no logical sense to me, but does for some c-suite asshole.
Intraday dynamic pricing is a terrible consumer experience, adds friction to the retail experience and generally hurts everyone including the retailer. Classic tragedy of the commons.
Overnight dynamic pricing is awesome - it saves the cost of re-tagging shelves (i.e. cost shared with consumers) and increases consumer trust since the POS and shelf tags are more likely(*) to be in sync.
(*) having worked in the business, don't get me started on how discrepancies emerge... easiest example is size/flavor/package/brand/etc where the consumer thinks they grabbed one thing and in fact grabbed another - technically the system worked, but in practice the consumer got sticker shock (either direction).
If you are online, you are one click away from a competing website and price competition is fierce. If you are physically in the store, you are at least 5 minutes away from checking the price of competitors.
Which doesn't factor at all into stores' decision to do it or not. As long as there is 0.1% more money to be made, they will do it. They do not care one single iota about their consumers or their preferences.
Economics isn't the study of money - it's the study of human choice. Trust is one of the most paramount decisions for this equation, and I think a company would be short sighted to see how fluctuating prices erase that trust.
I think the most interesting case study is in Japan where customers don't just expect stability - they get attached to items costing a fixed amount. I don't see how these fluctuating prices lead to anything other than a loss in market share - as long as an alternative exists.
This is just another example of a hot button issue that politicians will gravitate to and yet nothing will really happen. I mean everyone is against ESL but you know prices change every day right? Do you really think without ESL that things will be more affordable.
People don't really want the cheapest price, they want a fair price. They don't want to feel like they were screwed while some other guy got a great deal. Its why people love the Tesla buying experience.
Anyone who says “the news media” in their comments is also a bot. Not sure why I’m responding aside from the fact that a text limit exists on comments apparently
My post above was automatically removed because it was too short, so here I am making it longer, unnecessarily so that I can maybe inform 1-3 real life people that enshitification of the internet is here lalalalalalalala, hope this is long enough for you paste eaters, but if not here I am to say llalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal
Again
For the amount of fear-mongering I see about this kind of dynamic pricing, I’ve set to see a compelling example of it in real life. Surely if it was really was such a boon for a firms efficiency we would see more evidence of its practice by now?
It’s not an exact one to one, but look up the dollar general lawsuit on overcharging. Then say that you don’t think companies would attempt the type of gouging discussed here.
No point in banning something companies would do anyways and are entitled to, which is pricing based off of demand. It is just a core economic principle. Making it harder is just being petty.
Consumers deserve predictable pricing. The idea that you would allow the equivalent of surge pricing for basic goods is idiotic. They could easily manufacture shortages to massively inflate profits. This is a good idea if you want to see your neighborhood grocery store go up in flames one day soon.
CyberSmith31337 | 15 hours ago
Well, it’s a real bummer that this country doesn’t give a flying fuck what Americans support.
I’m pretty sure we don’t support insider trading by Congressman.
I’m pretty sure we don’t support the war in Iran.
I’m pretty sure we don’t support mass construction of data centers, funded by the taxpayers instead of the corporations who benefit from them.
But you know, nobody gives a shit what Americans want; we get what corporations have decided for us.
pepperNlime4to0 | 12 hours ago
“A government by the people, for the people” died with Citizens United. The American people and our interests are not who our Congress people are serving
Hyperion1144 | 5 hours ago
Hawaii just defeated Citizens United by redefining corporations and the nature of their existence and rights within the state.
One down, 49 to go.
Apprehensive-Ad9523 | 4 hours ago
Hawaii is voting against it. Check it out.
Previous_Cattle_5545 | 8 hours ago
Yes. My first thought was 'Do a majority of corporations support banning surveillance pricing?', because that's what really matters.
djerk | 14 hours ago
If we all just commit to ripping all electronic price tags off the shelves as we walk by, we can stop this
Tricky_Try8757 | 5 hours ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
And this was over 10 years ago. Hasn’t gotten any better.
zxc123zxc123 | 8 hours ago
Came to say this too.
Given that majority of Americans are against it?
We're going to get more of it in an even worst form.
CyberSmith31337 | 6 hours ago
I think it will go the way it usually does with shit like this.
They will rebrand it with some new shitty marketing term. Something like “quiet quitting”. Then the media pundits and “journalists” will start using the word commonly, having discussions with experts about how the bad thing isn’t really THAT bad; just misunderstood. Then it will be rapidly adopted and promoted by businesses, and be exponentially more predatory and worse than it began conceptually, as you stated.
That’s definitely the cycle of American capitalism and “innovation” these days.
Apprehensive-Ad9523 | 4 hours ago
No you get what the Supreme Court allows. Baby, Baby, Baby You Ain't Seen nothing yet. Bam Bam. LOL
aaahhhhhhfine | 2 hours ago
It's true that the US isn't very democratic. But it's also true that most people are wrong about or misunderstand this issue... Dynamic pricing is fine and it will often help you anyway.
Infinite-4-a-moment | an hour ago
What tax payers are funding data center construction?
ImSomeRandomHuman | 15 hours ago
If we did everything the people wanted we wouldn’t have a treasury.
qwert45 | 14 hours ago
I mean we would though. Or we wouldn’t be a country
UKEE93 | 14 hours ago
Maryland banned surveillance pricing on food. Hope other states follow. Fuck these greedy bastards.
https://www.multistate.us/insider/2026/4/30/maryland-becomes-first-state-to-ban-surveillance-pricing-on-some-food-products
Ateist | 7 hours ago
Has it actually worked?
well-of-wisdom | 6 hours ago
Online this has been used for many years already. Random-online-store.com would not be paying google for your search history, if it didn't mean they could make money of it.
Ateist | 5 hours ago
They don't have to price discriminate to make money off it - just offer what you might want based on your history.
And bad reputation from such a price discrimination would destroy that online store.
portmanteaudition | 10 hours ago
FYI surveillance pricing allows for higher willingness to pay consumers to subsidize lower willingness to pay consumers
Rodot | 6 hours ago
So like, the hungry pay more kind of thing?
portmanteaudition | an hour ago
The richer pay more
Otakeb | 6 hours ago
How about a product is worth something based on inputs and margin, and not whatever they can squeeze for it with whatever power they have over you?
EDIT: lmao they go butthurt and blocked me after responding saying I hate poor people. Yeah sorry, but if you truly believe this surveillance pricing will actually lead to reduced prices for some and not just marginal gains across income spectrums as data sharing grows allowing cartel pricing through a data middleman like with RealPage, I have a fucking bridge on Mars to sell you
portmanteaudition | an hour ago
Why do you hate poor people? We know exactly who bears the cost of centralized price fixing the economics subreddit. This isn't the populist subreddit.
Infinite-4-a-moment | an hour ago
When has that ever been a thing in the history of trade? That's just not how economies work.
Groovychick1978 | 5 hours ago
That has never been the way capitalists price goods.
The price of capitalistic goods is, "whatever the market can bear."
They continue to raise prices until sales drop consistently. That is their ceiling. As long as people keep paying, they will keep raising prices.
CreativeGPX | 2 hours ago
> How about a product is worth something based on inputs and margin
> and not whatever they can squeeze for it with whatever power they have over you?
As long as we start actually enforcing anti-trust laws, that just translates to "what the customer thinks it's worth paying". The producer has a minimum price that will incentivize them to make something. The consumer has a maximum price at which they'll buy most things in a competitive market. Setting prices based on the producer trying to set a price that the consumer will pay is a way to find the overlapping point of a mutually tolerance price in which incentives are therefore aligned and economic resources go most toward things that are most valued by society. Nothing about that is inherently "squeezing power". That comes from other unrelated issues like that our anti-trust laws aren't enforced or that are laws cushion businesses, investors and executives from risk more than they do reward or that we literally grant temporary monopolies. Otherwise, it's a pretty narrow set of things like certain healthcare decisions where a person might have no reasonable alternative in that moment.
Same-Platypus1941 | 10 hours ago
Yeah I would game the fuck out of that, plus I work off hours so it would most likely benefit me the most anyway.
crackanape | 5 hours ago
The fewer options you have, the higher your willingness to pay.
portmanteaudition | an hour ago
It is embarrassing that people are posting things like this in r/economics, when it should be immediately obvious that the number of substitutes has zero impact on equilibrium pricing without specific assumptions about the costs of those substitutes.
Mr_Safer | 4 hours ago
Thanks for the information. I hate it. Proud of Maryland for that bill.
plummbob | 6 hours ago
Yeah, people not really understanding how price discrimination can expand the total bought
portmanteaudition | an hour ago
You have to remember that poors are gonna poor
plummbob | an hour ago
Economics textbooks ain't expensive
kitesurfr | 14 hours ago
If the price of an object changes on me between the shelf and the checkout I'm just dropping it on the floor and walking out with zero guilt.
leathakkor | 12 hours ago
I did something like this a couple weeks ago at QFC. The price of what I was getting doubled from the week before I just left it on the self-checkout and left. I was literally there for one item and it wasn't even necessary but I felt like they were totally fucking me.
Mary10123 | 14 hours ago
This is a bot. 737 contributions in 1 month (account age). Majority of comments assent.
My post above was automatically removed because it was too short, so here I am making it longer, unnecessarily so that I can maybe inform 1-3 real life people that enshitification of the internet is here lalalalalalalala, hope this is long enough for you paste eaters, but if not here I am to say llalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal
Again
DJanomaly | 14 hours ago
Literally the same post on r/technology a few hours ago also. Please don’t be like that bottom feeder sub.
In top of that, what the actual fuck does this article have to do with actual Economics?!? Please let’s not turn this sub into the same shithole as the rest of Reddit.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
It's just the type of dumb rage bait that gets dumb people really engaged, which is what most of reddit is turning in to. Is surveillance pricing a real thing? Not really outside of a few gimmicky bars. Sure, we can pass some performative bans, but it's basically a nonexistent problem.
But man, if I was stupid and thought this was a real issue, I'd be upvoting the shit out of this and typing out some very very hyped up angry comments. So it'll do well to drive clicks on reddit.
leathakkor | 12 hours ago
Serious question, why would anyone want digital pricing or dynamic pricing?
The only reason I could possibly think of is you own a grocery store. The workers there don't benefit from it. I doubt they're going to ever drop prices. This is for surge pricing.
So what person would actually want this?? It's already hard enough when I go to the grocery store to figure out what the price is between member pricing at Kroger, and Safeway,. Digital online coupons. Why do we need a third variable to spin in.
aaahhhhhhfine | 2 hours ago
I'm sure I'll get downvoted to hell here... But I certainly don't have a problem with it.
You already have dynamic pricing in most things you buy. Airlines have been doing it for a very long time, but of course basically everything you buy online is dynamically priced. This isn't some magic new thing.
And remember that the goal of dynamic pricing is getting you to buy stuff. Everyone assumes that it means you'll pay more. But that's not really true. Whether Amazon makes $1 on your sale or $2... They still make more than $0. Their goal is to make the sale and sometimes dynamic pricing lowers prices to encourage you to buy.
Also, again in the theme of nothing being new here, companies were already doing this with coupons and direct incentives to you. You just didn't care because you could see them and understand them.
But the bigger question is basically why we care so much about stopping in-person stores from doing this. Why is it fair that Amazon can dynamically price stuff but that Kroger can't? Why can Walmart online do it but not Walmart in the store?
This is just one of those issues that people misunderstand a bit and get all fired up about. But it doesn't really matter very much overall and you already have it most places.
portmanteaudition | 10 hours ago
Because it can theoretically allow poorer people to buy your product via cross-subsidization.
anti-torque | 7 hours ago
How in the world would the pricing know this?
leathakkor | 3 hours ago
And even if it could know that why would you want any business to know your financial status?
And also wouldn't rich people then game the system? Because rich people wouldn't want to pay higher prices either?
Would this require that you share your filed tax return with the company?
If it's a simple matter of checking a box on your membership card and then swiping your membership card, wouldn't everyone check that box?
This has to be one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard when it comes to how to implement it.
I'm a software developer by trade, and if somebody pitched me this idea, I would give them about a 50-year estimate on how to actually implement it so that it was correct.
Infinite-4-a-moment | 58 minutes ago
Likely none of that. They'd just model your propensity to spend on things and augment pricing based on you profile. They don't actually care how much money you earn, just how much you're willing to spend. A frugal millionaire is worth less to them than a spendy poor person.
To contextualize this, let's say you always buy name brand cheerios. You've never once bought the Kroger brand version even tho it's $3 cheaper. So your box of cheerios is $6. I, on the other hand, have never bought name brand cheerios. They're double the price compared to what I get! Well Kroger could in theory dynamically price the name brand cheerios so when I shop, they're only $4. Hmm, name brand for only $1 more than the Kroger brand? Alright, I'll give that a try. Kroger has no idea what kind fo money we make, but they know who needs a nudge to buy up to the name brand.
Like someone else mentioned, they already do this in a way. You know at checkout how you get coupons printed out? They're not the same every time. They're personalized to you based on your profile. They're using your behavior data to customize pricing with the goal or incentivising a purchase action from you. Starbucks? Extra stars if you buy a muffin this week? That's because they know you don't buy food items so they are trying to get you to give it a go. The muffin purchasers aren't getting that deal. It's all personalized pricing based on user data.
portmanteaudition | an hour ago
Why are you typing in a post about surveillance pricing when you do not even know what surveillance pricing is? Step away from the keyboard kid.
TheStephinator | 6 hours ago
I don’t understand the hatred of digital price tags if they aren’t engaging in dynamic pricing. Aldi has had digital tags for years and there hasn’t been issues. In fact, I purchased something the other day and it rang up for less than the digital shelf tag. Dynamic pricing is a racket, but big retailers have already been doing versions of price manipulation for some time. Online prices are often less than in store pricing.
Most places price match their online prices to in store, but Walmart no longer does this. I went to buy a product I had researched online and the price was three times higher in the store (not digital price tag related). The cashier said they wouldn’t price match, so I ended up having to do a pick up order to get the lower price. More labor was involved in that scenario, thus costing Walmart more money overall only to charge me less. It makes no logical sense to me, but does for some c-suite asshole.
asah | 6 hours ago
Intraday dynamic pricing is a terrible consumer experience, adds friction to the retail experience and generally hurts everyone including the retailer. Classic tragedy of the commons.
Overnight dynamic pricing is awesome - it saves the cost of re-tagging shelves (i.e. cost shared with consumers) and increases consumer trust since the POS and shelf tags are more likely(*) to be in sync.
(*) having worked in the business, don't get me started on how discrepancies emerge... easiest example is size/flavor/package/brand/etc where the consumer thinks they grabbed one thing and in fact grabbed another - technically the system worked, but in practice the consumer got sticker shock (either direction).
well-of-wisdom | 6 hours ago
If you are online, you are one click away from a competing website and price competition is fierce. If you are physically in the store, you are at least 5 minutes away from checking the price of competitors.
lopix | 5 hours ago
Which doesn't factor at all into stores' decision to do it or not. As long as there is 0.1% more money to be made, they will do it. They do not care one single iota about their consumers or their preferences.
Garrett42 | 48 minutes ago
Economics isn't the study of money - it's the study of human choice. Trust is one of the most paramount decisions for this equation, and I think a company would be short sighted to see how fluctuating prices erase that trust.
I think the most interesting case study is in Japan where customers don't just expect stability - they get attached to items costing a fixed amount. I don't see how these fluctuating prices lead to anything other than a loss in market share - as long as an alternative exists.
othelloblack | 14 hours ago
This is just another example of a hot button issue that politicians will gravitate to and yet nothing will really happen. I mean everyone is against ESL but you know prices change every day right? Do you really think without ESL that things will be more affordable.
lumpialarry | 7 hours ago
People don't really want the cheapest price, they want a fair price. They don't want to feel like they were screwed while some other guy got a great deal. Its why people love the Tesla buying experience.
othelloblack | an hour ago
Not sure Tesla is the poster boy for anything really
RUShittingInMyMouth | an hour ago
The last time I was in a tesla store the worker called me an idiot for having a gas car. Needless to say I did not enjoy the experience.
Mary10123 | 14 hours ago
Anyone who says “the news media” in their comments is also a bot. Not sure why I’m responding aside from the fact that a text limit exists on comments apparently
abyssazaur | 13 hours ago
Amazon supports it too
My post above was automatically removed because it was too short, so here I am making it longer, unnecessarily so that I can maybe inform 1-3 real life people that enshitification of the internet is here lalalalalalalala, hope this is long enough for you paste eaters, but if not here I am to say llalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal
Again
droxile | 14 hours ago
For the amount of fear-mongering I see about this kind of dynamic pricing, I’ve set to see a compelling example of it in real life. Surely if it was really was such a boon for a firms efficiency we would see more evidence of its practice by now?
Any_Entrepreneur5188 | 14 hours ago
It’s not an exact one to one, but look up the dollar general lawsuit on overcharging. Then say that you don’t think companies would attempt the type of gouging discussed here.
VerdantField | 14 hours ago
Obviously you don’t travel. 🤣
ImSomeRandomHuman | 15 hours ago
No point in banning something companies would do anyways and are entitled to, which is pricing based off of demand. It is just a core economic principle. Making it harder is just being petty.
smythy422 | 14 hours ago
Consumers deserve predictable pricing. The idea that you would allow the equivalent of surge pricing for basic goods is idiotic. They could easily manufacture shortages to massively inflate profits. This is a good idea if you want to see your neighborhood grocery store go up in flames one day soon.
discgman | 14 hours ago
Oh there is a storm coming, better jack up the prices of those umbrellas
locklear24 | 14 hours ago
They’re entitled to having their warehouses burned too.
discgman | 14 hours ago
You like cheese burgers with a side of corporate boots 🥾
tads73 | 15 hours ago
I actually appreciate Walmarts pricing. Instead of using all $.99, they seem to be precise with their pricing with the cents being any number.