It would be best if a dozen of you went together and so closing all the checkout lanes.
Call a local journalist to come with you.
521–530 of 754 posts
It would be best if a dozen of you went together and so closing all the checkout lanes.
Call a local journalist to come with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, this type of conflict can only be adjudicated by courts, which low-income people don't have the time and money for. You couldn't just walk out of the store with the items. You'd need to either: 1. Buy the items and sue. 2. Take the items without paying, likely get the police called on you, and defend yourself in criminal and civil court.
Theoretically there is a third option, stay in the store near the cash register and call the police to come deal with it on the spot before the purchase. The problem is that they probably won't bother coming, and if they do, they won't come quickly enough to make it worth waiting for them given the amount of money at stake. Edit: Yeah, I did say before the purchase, but I should have said after the purchase when they…
“At Family Dollar, we take customer trust seriously and are committed to ensuring pricing accuracy across our stores,” the company said. “We are currently reviewing the concerns raised and working to better understand any potential discrepancies. We continue to be focused on providing a consistent and transparent shopping experience.”
Dollar General said it was “committed to providing customers with accurate prices on items purchased in our stores, and we are disappointed any time we fail to deliver on this commitment”. In one court case in Ohio, Dollar General’s lawyers argued that “it is virtually impossible for a retailer to match shelf pricing and scanned pricing 100% of the time for all items. Perfection in this regard is neither plausible nor expected under the law.”
They make it sound like isolated incidents. Someone should keep following up on statements like that until they are fixed, or refer them to a DA. No?
Furthermore, what about "false advertising" laws?
Dollar stores are private equity with a checkout lane. In 2025, Dollar Tree sold Family Dollar to a group of private-equity firms: Brigade Capital Management, Macellum Capital Management and Arkhouse Management Co. https://corporate.dollartree.com/news-media/press-releases/d... It’s a business model cosplaying as poverty relief while quietly siphoning money from the people least able to lose it. They already run on a…
Has private equity ever done anything good for anyone outside of the investors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> cosplaying as poverty relief Does it really? Who says this, and who believes it?
>> cosplaying as poverty relief > Does it really? Who says this (search engine: 22 relevant results in 0.85s.) we’re here to provide affordable and convenient access to name brands, DG’s private brands, nutritious foods, household essentials and more. ref: https://www.dollargeneral.com/hereforwhatmatters
Can you explain to me how USA is called civilized? How somebody can say things like that, and how a shop is even allowed to have an error margin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has private equity ever done anything good for anyone outside of the investors?
> Has private equity ever done anything good for anyone outside of the investors? If it's not publicly traded, it's super secure from any public accountability. And while I'm increasingly hostile toward the shareholder model, we do get one transparency breadcrumb from this (gov managed) contrivance: The Earnings Call Earnings Calls give us worthwhile amounts of internal information that we'd never get otherwise - inf…
How to fix it: let shareholders be gradually bought out—much as slaveholders in Europe were—by (gasp) utility tokenholders. Think Shares in Disney Corp vs Disney Dollars. You transition from extractive shareholders to people who actually use and depend on the ecosystem. That eliminates the parasitic shareholder class that drives most of late-stage capitalist enshittification, rent extraction, and negative externalities.
For clarity, here are just some of those externalities that flow directly from quarterly-earnings-driven incentives:
destruction of ecosystems
deforestation and rainforest loss
collapse of fisheries and ocean systems
factory farming / industrialized animal suffering
desertification of farmland
strip mining and toxic waste dumping
privatization and depletion of freshwater
carbon emissions and climate destabilization
environmental injustice and poisoning of local communities
lobbying to block regulation and accountability
social media addiction design for engagement metrics
monopolization and killing off smaller competitors
offshoring, wage stagnation, and worker precarity
financialization of everything (housing, healthcare, education)
political capture to preserve the whole machine
This is not some random accident, this is the inevitable equilibrium of shareholder primacy.The entire model of late-stage shareholding is flawed. Corporations exist because governments grant them charters. Government sets the rules for how shares work—and can change those rules. Buying shares is not like buying bonds. Shares are residual claims with far higher risk. So we can absolutely add another risk: that shareholders may be gradually bought out and the institution wound down, the same way the FDR administration forced private gold holders into a buyout under the Gold Reserve Act.
That was far more authoritarian, because gold is a physical asset you own in self-custody. Shares, on the other hand, only exist because a third-party company continues to operate in ways that profit you. That dependency already implies higher risk. Therefore, we can add the additional risk of a structured, government-mandated transition away from extractive shareholder capitalism—just like Europe did when ending slavery. And let's be honest: late-stage financialized shareholding has been a blight on the planet.
And none of this is historically radical. Before the modern era, the idea that shareholders should dominate everything simply didn’t exist.
Pre-1960s:For much of the 20th century, a broader "stakeholder theory" was the norm. Management balanced employees, customers, suppliers, and communities—not just shareholders.
1960s:The turn began with Milton Friedman’s argument that a company’s only responsibility is maximizing shareholder profits (1970 NYT Magazine). 1980s:Shareholder primacy took over.
Hostile takeovers forced boards into short-termism.
Executive compensation was tied tightly to stock price.
Financialization embedded all of this into corporate DNA.
Shareholders were not always in control. Their dominance "waxed and waned," and the current form of shareholder primacy is a late-20th-century financial ideology posing as an eternal law of nature.If that ideology got us enshittification, ecological collapse, and a sociopathic corporate culture, then yes, we can fix it the same way other harmful institutions were fixed: buy the incumbents out and transition to a saner governance model.
> Dollar General’s lawyers argued that “it is virtually impossible for a retailer to match shelf pricing and scanned pricing 100% of the time for all items. Perfection in this regard is neither plausible nor expected under the law.” Can you explain to me how USA is called civilized? How somebody can say things like that, and how a shop is even allowed to have an error margin
All told, 69 of the 300 items came up higher at the register: a 23% error rate that exceeded the state’s limit by more than tenfold.
This implies that an error rate of perhaps 2% would be legal. I haven't checked, but I guess Europe has something similar even though I'm quite certain that retailers have to sell things at the posted price if there's a mistake.
Part of the problem seems to be that the maximum fine (at least in the state in the article) is "too low", so retailers don't have an incentive to keep price tags correct since they profit from the error and even if they're fined it's still better (economically) for them to charge more than the price tag. I wonder how much lobbying has happened to keep fines low ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> NC law. Does it have an "invitation to treat" practice [...] rather than a legally-binding offer? Are there any common-law jurisdictions in the world where having products on sale in a supermarket is not generally considered invitation to treat but as an offer to sell?
What is an invitation to treat, and how does a store with items on the shelf not constitute an offer to sell?
If the price on the shelf were an offer to sell, then you would be contractually obliged to buy everything you picked up. The offer comes instead from when you pass it to the cashier, which is why I'm saying for the third time on this thread, if you don't like that price walk out and leave the goods at the checkout...see if they find it more fun to put all your goods back, or put the correct prices on the shelf! If a group of people did this at every till the store would be effectively closed.
> Dollar General’s lawyers argued that “it is virtually impossible for a retailer to match shelf pricing and scanned pricing 100% of the time for all items. Perfection in this regard is neither plausible nor expected under the law.” Can you explain to me how USA is called civilized? How somebody can say things like that, and how a shop is even allowed to have an error margin
Expecting physical reality to synchronously conform to a policy in an information system is pretty silly.