This supermarket chain stands firmly against the vigorous circular motion:
Mind. Blown. pic.twitter.com/iAHuEFjG15
— Nightowls, Inc (@nightowlsinc) August 21, 2015
One probably should not assume that J. Random Customer actually realizes this.
This supermarket chain stands firmly against the vigorous circular motion:
Mind. Blown. pic.twitter.com/iAHuEFjG15
— Nightowls, Inc (@nightowlsinc) August 21, 2015
One probably should not assume that J. Random Customer actually realizes this.
I mentioned that I was testing out the new American Express Serve card, a prepaid debit card with the usual Amex bennies and a meager $12 annual fee (billed at $1 a month), and there are ways to avoid that fee with certain usage patterns.
Now comes a variation on the Serve theme: good old-fashioned cash-back bonuses. The news release:
American Express announced Serve Cash Back, a new prepaid debit Account option that will earn Accountholders 1% cash back on purchases. Consumers who spend in line with the 2012 – 2013 U.S. Department of Labor national averages for gas, groceries, dining out, clothing, transportation and entertainment using the Serve Cash Back Card could potentially earn more than $400 annually when earning 1% cash back.
For those who do spend that way, this sounds like a pretty sweet deal. I don’t. And the cash back is somewhat offset by a higher fee: $5.95 a month. Still, people allergic to debt are likely a growing market, and you can’t blame Amex for wanting a piece of it.
Historical note: The original green American Express card, still available for $95 a year, is a true charge card; you pay it off each month. I ran with one of those throughout the 1980s. It is curious to me that I still remember that card number, but can’t remember my current one.
Roberta X had a bill to pay, and apparently they only take Roman sestertii or something:
The savages! They have no way to pay it online! Dear merciful heavens, do I have to write and mail a check, like some kind of animal? I’ll call them, or — if they haven’t quite made it out of the 19th Century — telegraph. Gads.
Mind you, in the late 19th Century, the mail arrived — and went out — twice a day. Western Union wired cash anywhere, not just for scams; in fact, their system was foolproof for the time. I could probably have hired a boy on a bicycle to deliver a check in a sealed envelope and bring back a receipt.
Then again, a proper Web-based payment system may be beyond these folks:
I just called their office, at 8:06 am, only to have a much dumber robot tell me to call back later, between the hours of eight am and seven pm.
The most charitable assumption is that the person in charge of the answering machine was late. It gets worse quickly after that.
The bank with which I do the vast majority of my business not one of the big chains, but big enough has been serving up a perfectly legible online-banking interface for the last five years, which fit nicely onto my screens. It apparently did not fit nicely onto people’s phones, though, so they’ve unveiled a new interface aimed directly at those who swipe rather than those who mouse around.
Well, no, I didn’t like it much. On the upside, it’s not so different from what American Express is showing me these days, so at least I didn’t have much of a learning curve, and I suppose eventually I’ll end up with a smartphone, or at least a not-quite-so-dumb phone. I’m not going to try it on my current phone; it will probably work, but carrier charges for Web access on an account with no data plan border on the absurd.
I’ve visited actual Turkish bazaars, and they’re a lot more pleasant than shopping for cars in the States. So I applaud this tentative gesture by Lexus:
Would no-haggle car pricing make the car-buying process more pleasant, and make you feel more warm and cuddly toward car dealers and toward the brand? Lexus apparently hopes so, and they plan to test this kind of pricing at a dozen of their dealerships.
The general manager for Lexus U.S.A. announced the experiment [yesterday] at a Center for Automotive Research event. “While negotiation-free pricing is not revolutionary, we strongly believe the concept will further elevate transaction transparency and customer care,” he told his audience of people in the industry.
It helps that Lexus has already developed a (mostly) stellar reputation for customer care.
This is, of course, not new; Toyota’s #3 brand, Scion, not only offers fixed prices but allows for a whole lot of customer, um, customization. And no-haggle was at the heart of the short-lived Saturn experiment over at General Motors. Then again, Saturn is dead, and Scion sales are circling the drain, so Lexus is probably wise to limit this practice to a handful of dealers for now.
Consumerist is running a poll (see link), and the hard-bargainer types are at this writing trailing by a fairly substantial margin.
My creditworthiness having increased from zero to marginally above zero of late, the bogus mortgage-refinance offers I get in email are now being supplemented by non-bogus mortgage-refinance offers in actual snail mail. Quicken Loans sent me one yesterday, which pitched me a 15-year refi at a quoted rate seemingly far below what I’m paying now.
I was going to toss it just on general principle, but I decided to sit down and do the math anyway. Actual savings: about $29 a month.
“But it’s only 15 years, and you have a 30-year note!” Well, yeah; but of those thirty years, only eighteen remain. To me, it’s not worth the hassle for a mere seven bucks and change a week.
GoFundMe has raised its maximum donation by a factor of three and then some. Why? Two words: “Taylor Swift.” Behold:
On July 7th, a young girl battling cancer named Naomi got a huge surprise when her favorite singer, Taylor Swift, donated $50,000 to her GoFundMe campaign. Naomi and her family were understandably surprised and grateful for such a generous gift.
“Taylor Swift’s donation was so generous that it required us to increase the donation limit on the platform,” said Rob Solomon, GoFundMe CEO. GoFundMe’s previous donation limit was set at $15,000, but has now been increased to $50,000. There are never any limits on how much a campaign can raise.
There’s a cancer named Naomi? And they say I need an editor. (“You do.”–ed.)
You might look at this and think “Yeah, Tay just crashed their site and offered to make up for it.” Nope:
Including gifts to other campaigns, Taylor Swift has given more than any other donor in GoFundMe history.
I fully expect the next rocket to Mars to have her name on it.
Fake PayPal email is so common I barely notice the real PayPal email. And if they’re going to use subject lines like this, it’s just as well:
Balance Notification: You have funds in your PayPal account.
Well, duh. That’s what it’s for, you knuckleheads. I assume you’re wanting me to go forth and spend more, but hey, that’s not your call unless, of course, I don’t have funds.
Few shout “We are a legitimate business!” louder than your friendly neighborhood payday-loan joint. Maybe it is. I haven’t been there. But certainly this particular operation threw away its bid for legitimacy:
The operators of a payday lending scheme that allegedly bilked millions of dollars from consumers by trapping them into loans they never authorized will be banned from the consumer lending business under settlements with the Federal Trade Commission.
The settlements stem from charges the FTC filed last year alleging that Timothy A. Coppinger, Frampton T. Rowland III, and their companies targeted online payday loan applicants and, using information from lead generators and data brokers, deposited money into those applicants’ bank accounts without their permission. The defendants then withdrew reoccurring “finance” charges without any of the payments going to pay down the principal owed. The court subsequently halted the operation and froze the defendants’ assets pending litigation.
According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants told consumers they had agreed to, and were obligated to pay for, the unauthorized “loans.” To support their claims, the defendants provided consumers with fake loan applications or other loan documents purportedly showing that consumers had authorized the loans. If consumers closed their bank accounts to stop the unauthorized debits, the defendants often sold the “loans” to debt buyers who then harassed consumers for payment.
So weasels and jackals can crossbreed. Who knew?
(Thanks to Roger Green.)
American Express is phasing out its old prepaid card in favor of something called Serve, and I decided I’d give the new product a test drive.
The most obvious difference is capacity: the old prepaid card was limited to $2,250. You can stash a million, or more, on Serve. (Not that I’d have a million, but you get the idea.) All the usual Amex bennies are in play, including product insurance. And at a buck a month, it’s cheaper than any other plastic offered by Amex.
The transaction listings might perplex the newcomer. I plugged a Serve card into the iTunes Store to cover future purchases. As is Apple’s wont, and as I expected, they requested an authorization for $1 to make sure the card was good. As I didn’t expect, this dollar stayed on the listings for eight days before being allowed to expire. This is in accordance with the card’s terms, but it seems a trifle excessive.
Saturday I swiped it to get a tankful of V-Power Nitro+. Amex responded with a $99 hold. (I was expecting maybe $75.) This was reduced Monday to the amount actually purchased: $36.10. Of course, they have no idea how big my gas tank is. But I wonder how much they’re going to hold for, say, a two-night hotel stay.
Then again, this is more information than I’m used to getting from credit cards, or even my Visa Check Card. Maybe I shouldn’t complain, since things do get ironed out on schedule.
Ads displaying Amexes (Amices?) of old bore the name C. F. Frost, who, incidentally, actually existed:
Charles Frost or Chuck, as we like to call him -is a real person. He was an account executive for the advertising firm of Ogilvy & Mather, which put together the original “Do you know me?” ads for American Express. Ogilvy and Amex thought it would be convenient to use Frost’s name on the sample ads rather than some phony moniker, which would probably turn out to be the real name of some joker in Pocatello who would sue for privacy infringement. Luckily for Chuck, the number on the credit card was not his real American Express card number.
Dear Ann Baker: Call me.
It appears that all American business models have been updated to include “Pester the customer as much as possible in an effort to get the sucker to buy more.” Temerity Funds [not its real name], my 401(k) “provider,” has been following this path for several years now, and it amazes them that I have a balance in the middle five figures, and not the low seven figures they think I’ll need to survive the rigors of retirement. And they’d probably be right if I were going to live to 118 or so; but I’m pretty sure that’s not happening.
What is happening is this: assuming Social Security doesn’t go down the drain right away, I’ll pull somewhere around $1800 a month in retirement income. Which isn’t a lot. Then again, the austerity budget I’d been on for the past five years left me with somewhere around $1800 a month to live on. It’s uncomfortably tight, but it is doable.
And there’s an X factor from my past. Last week I got a card from my employer in the late Seventies and early Eighties, who apparently had lost track of me and needed me to verify my existence for pension purposes. I knew this existed, but as yet I hadn’t done any work on tracing it, and I figured at best it might be $100 a month. No, actually, it’s $250, assuming retirement (as Social Security does) at age 66. Things just got slightly looser.
I want to say up front that when they say “we,” they don’t mean me:
Maybe it’s a kind of pension envy. We worry that our retirement account is just not big enough, especially when compared to the those of the big savers. And the younger we are, the more we fret.
Almost one-third (29%) of respondents to a new Merrill Edge survey admitted they would be embarrassed if their close friends or family knew the intimate details of their finances especially their retirement savings, checking account balance or credit score. They’re even a bit shy about how much they spent on their wedding and how much they blow every month on discretionary items.
Then there are those of us who wonder why the hell it’s anybody’s business how much was spent on my wedding. (Hint: Not much.)
[S]urprisingly, those with the most time to prepare for retirement are the most concerned. More Gen X-ers (74%) and Millennials (67%) say they expect a “stressful retirement” in their future, based on what they are currently able to save. Meanwhile, about six-in-ten (59%) of current “mass affluent” retirees having $50,000 to $250,000 in investable assets aren’t concerned about their finances.
“Mass affluent?” GMAFB. Mass effluent, maybe. If I got eased into the Lonely Financial Zone this week, $50,000 would last me maybe through the 2016 election, after which anything left would probably be confiscated. (For all I know, it might be confiscated before the election; Washington is not to be trusted on such matters.)
About 2006, the woman who’d been doing my hair for the past several years took off for points unknown, and inasmuch as it was a ten-mile-plus drive to the shop where she was working for a while she’d had her own shop I started looking for a new shop, and eventually found myself going to a unisex shop on the northwest side. By no coincidence, this was the same shop Trini was using. The tab was $14; I handed the guy a twenty and said “Swap you one of these for a one.”
Eventually, reasoning that the price had surely gone up, I simply handed him a twenty and let it go at that. And this worked just fine until this past weekend, when I popped open the billfold and said, “You know, I have no idea what this actually costs anymore.”
“Eighteen dollars,” he said.
I reached for another bill, but he bade me close up the wallet. “You’re fine,” he said. “See you in a few weeks.”
The Zimbabwean dollar is dead. Not resting, dead:
Zimbabwe is phasing out its local currency, the central bank says, formalising a multi-currency system introduced during hyper-inflation.
Foreign currencies like the US dollar and South African rand have been used for most transactions since 2009.
Local dollars are not used except high-denomination notes sold as souvenirs.
And this is the final exchange rate before it rings down the curtain and joins the Choir Invisible:
From Monday, Zimbabweans can exchange bank accounts of up to 175 quadrillion (175,000,000,000,000,000) Zimbabwean dollars for five US dollars.
Higher balances will be exchanged at a rate of Z$35 quadrillion to US$1.
This is still chump change or, I guess, the inverse of chump change next to the post-World War II megahypersuperinflation of the Hungarian pengő, which was killed off in 1946 and replaced with the forint, deemed to be worth 460 octillion pengő.
I am seldom happy to see something from the Oklahoma Tax Commission in the day’s mail, especially since the one thing I can expect from them in June the card for this year’s vehicle registration showed up promptly on the first.
I slit open the envelope. and there it was: the green debit MasterCard the state uses to dispense income-tax refunds. Well, okay, fine, but I wasn’t anticipating a tax refund; in fact, I sent them a check for a sum in three figures back in the spring.
Perplexed, I dialed up the inevitable 800 number and went through the entire activation sequence. Apparently on Monday the state decided to credit me with $2.00. I don’t know why; I didn’t make any computational errors on my return. The Tax Commission’s Web page was down yesterday for maintenance and supposedly hasn’t been modified since late May, so I’m betting a finger on some unsteady hand pressed the wrong button and sent out several thousand of these to unsuspecting taxpayers, and no one has figured it out yet.
In the meantime, I have $2 on this card. I think maybe I’ll buy a couple of non-current MP3s with it.
Update, 21 June: I spent it on this eight-minute track:
I’m thinking a companion piece to FGTH’s Two Tribes.
About five years ago, American Express, about the last people on earth you’d expect to do such a thing, introduced a refillable debit card with no monthly fee. I saw this as a reasonable way to stash away a few bucks, and got one.
More recently, Amex introduced a new card with just about all the bennies of a “real” Amex card, called Serve. Users of the old card have not migrated en masse to the new one, perhaps because it costs a buck a month, unless you load it via direct deposit or otherwise stash $500 in your account. (The $1 fee does not apply in three states.) So Amex stopped accepting applications for the old card last year. I decided I’d switch, but only when the time was right.
Well, the time is now right: Amex is imposing a $4.95 monthly fee on the old card, starting this fall. I’ve ordered the Serve, and I’ll report on anything weird that happens.
WFMU headlined it this way, and I can’t possibly top that:
Never Mind the Balance Transfer, Here's the Sex Pistols Credit Card: http://t.co/slbnUDSmOc
— WFMU (@WFMU) June 9, 2015
But why? The bank’s director of cards explains:
“In launching these cards, we wanted to celebrate Virgin’s heritage and difference. The Sex Pistols challenged convention and the established ways of thinking just as we are doing today in our quest to shake up UK banking.”
Not too anarchist, one assumes: the cards carry an interest rate of 18.9 percent.
BC Clark Jewelers, founded (as every Oklahoman already knows) in 1892, instituted a program in 1998 called Pray for Rain:
When you buy your engagement ring from BC Clark Jewelers and it rains (or snows) an inch or more on your wedding day, BC Clark will refund you the price of your engagement ring up to $5,000. Just ask one of our 140+ Pray for Rain winning couples!”
So in sixteen years they averaged about nine winners a year. Then the Rainiest Month in History befell them:
According to Mitchell Clark, Executive Vice President for BC Clark, they had another Pray For Rain winner on Tuesday, May 19, and five more winners on Saturday, May 23.
That makes 14 winners in the last four weeks, and 17 in total for the year, Clark said.
And the year isn’t even half over.
This arrived in email Sunday:
If You Shopped at Target from November 27 through December 18, 2013 or Received Notice That Your Personal Information Was Compromised, You Could Get Money for Losses from a Data Breach Settlement.
A Settlement has been proposed in lawsuits against Target Corporation (“Target”) relating to Target customers whose credit/debit card information or personal information was stolen as a result of a data breach that was first disclosed on December 19, 2013 (“Target Data Breach”). Target’s records show you are included in this Settlement and may be eligible for a cash payment. Visit www.TargetBreachSettlement.com for more information or to file a claim.
Who is included in the Settlement? You are a member of the Class if: (1) you shopped at a Target store and used your credit or debit card from November 27-December 18, 2013; (2) you provided your contact information to Target before December 18, 2013; or (3) your bank, credit card company, or other financial institution issued you a new credit or debit card shortly after December 2013 and informed you that your old card may have been compromised. If you received a notice directly about the Target Data Breach, you are a Class Member.
What does the Settlement provide? The $10 million Settlement Fund will provide payments to consumers who have had losses caused by the Target Data Breach. If you are included, you can choose between two types of payments:
* If you have documentation, you can receive reimbursement of losses up to $10,000. These losses include unauthorized, unreimbursed charges; certain costs and fees; and lost or restricted access to funds among other things.
* If you do not have documentation, you may be eligible for an equal share of the Settlement Fund remaining after payment of claims for documented losses and service payments. For example, if the total of service payments awarded by the Court plus documented claims adds up to $1 million and 300,000 Settlement Class Members submit valid claims without documentation, you will receive $30 from the Settlement Fund. The amount of actual payments will depend on the amount of claims received.
I fall into classification (2): I presumably had this stuff on file, but did not actually charge anything at Target during the period in question, and have incurred no losses as a result of the breach.
Oh, since you were curious:
Target will pay any attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded by the Court to Settlement Class Counsel separate and apart from the Settlement Fund. Settlement Class Counsel’s Fee Request will not exceed $6.75 million ($6,750,000).
Is there a separate wing of law school where class-action suits are studied as a specialty? And how much extra do they charge for tuition?
I grew up thinking that all these New York folks carrying a single bag of groceries down the street had the right idea: every day, fresh and new, doncha know. This was, of course, long before I had to start shopping for myself, and I learned the wisdom of going as little as possible:
[S]hop with a list and go once a week for your main trip. Go more than once a week only if you have to restock on a necessity (such as milk in our family), or if you’ve run out of a critical item (cat food!). You may be able to cut your grocery trips to every other week if you have a large refrigerator and pantry. This does mean that you don’t take advantage of each week’s loss leaders but that may not matter as much as avoiding the store altogether and spending even less.
If you are forced to make that emergency trip, then make yourself buy ONLY the item you need. Walk into the store and do NOT use a buggy, which would encourage you to fill that empty space with impulse buys. Don’t even take one of those carry baskets. Carry baskets, small carts, and large buggies: each one lets you put more stuff into it so you buy more stuff. If you hand-carry what you need, you’ll buy less.
It’s a rare month when I show up at the supermarket as many as six times. Most often, it’s a Saturday trip for regular restocking, and a trip to Braum’s about every third Wednesday to silence that damnable craving for Rocky Road. Then again, the only one eating around here is yours truly, so I always know what I need to buy and what I’m already out of.
I hadn’t seen it before. It’s a restaurant ticket, pretty much like any other, except that at the bottom it calculates the “suggested gratuity” for you at three fairly standard rates: 15 percent, 18 percent (“GREAT!”) and 20 percent (“WOW!!”) On the $43.50 check used as illustration, 20 percent is given as $7.99; since 20 percent of $43.50 is in fact $8.70, I’m assuming they’re figuring it before taxes. Me, I’d probably round it up to $9, because that’s just how I roll.
It’s common to leave a nice tip for restaurant waitstaff who do a good job. But one man went above and beyond with his restaurant gratuity, leaving behind a $3,000 tip on a $43.50 check for a struggling waitress.
Mike, a resident in New York City, left the massive tip for a waitress who was facing some hard times. “This woman had been serving us for almost a year now. She’s a lovely individual, and she talked about how she was served an eviction notice last month,” Mike told ABC News.
Mike, who asked to remain anonymous, made the tip as part of the ReesSpecht Life foundation, a pay-it-forward movement started by teacher Ray Specht after the tragic death of his 22-month-old son. Mike asked the waitress to not “let ‘Pay it Forward’ end with you.”
Not all of us can afford to part with three grand on just such an occasion, but it’s heartening when someone can, and does.
I think Apple barring some sort of economic collapse will be the first trillion dollar US company. That said, the time to start looking around for alternatives will be when the market consensus believes that Apple will remain on top forever.
Yep. Things that can’t last forever which includes pretty much everything, really won’t. Still, it will take a lot to dislodge a company that’s sitting on nearly $200 billion in cash.
Want to see someone’s jaw drop? Tell them that the computer for which they paid $1000 won’t bring twenty bucks at a garage sale.
I’ve run into adamant, intractable private sellers on three different occasions in recent weeks, and I’m finding their mental attitude almost incomprehensible. In each case the seller argued along the lines that he’d paid X for the article in question, and therefore he wanted to recover as much of that price as possible. The fact that the same article could be bought, brand-new, for a significantly lower price was irrelevant as far as he was concerned.
And even if you can’t get a new one for cheaper, the old one is still not worth what it used to be:
I’m seeing this crop up in more and more areas of the market right now, including housing and vehicles. Actual market values are ignored as sellers demand unrealistic, unreasonably high prices. Some of them are just plain greedy. Others seem to be conflating the price they paid for something with an emotional investment in it. They’re trying to recoup that emotional investment, rather than the item’s actual present monetary worth. I can understand someone who needs cash wanting to get the best possible price, but the market sets that price, not the individual. If he demands too much, he’ll get nothing at all.
Among the worst offenders are people who wrecked their almost-new $30,000 cars and are horrified that the insurance company totaled it and handed them a check for $18,500. These are kin to the idiots suffering from “buyer’s remorse” and want to trade the car they had for 72 hours even up for another one of a different color or some such horsepuckey. In vain will you explain to them that the moment there’s a new name on the title, it’s a used car.
What does this tell you about Thunder-Jazz?
How exciting is this game? I'm doing my taxes.
— Charles G Hill (@dustbury) March 29, 2015
Yep. At some point during the third quarter, I turned down the sound and started the long annual trudge through the financials. It doesn’t take that long I finished the Federal before the end of the game, and the state return is pretty simple but the local roundballers should not consider this an endorsement, if you know what I mean.
One new line on the back of the 1040 is labeled “Health care: individual responsibility (see instructions)”. From said instructions:
Beginning in 2014, individuals must have health care coverage, qualify for a health coverage exemption, or make a shared responsibility payment with their tax return. If you had qualifying health care coverage (called minimum essential coverage) for every month of 2014 for yourself, your spouse (if filing jointly), and anyone you could or did claim as a dependent, check the box on this line and leave the entry space blank. Otherwise, do not check the box on this line. See the instructions for Form 8965.
You know, it would have been easier for all of us if they’d just called the damn thing a tax. After all, it’s grouped under Other Taxes on the return.
There’s a line line 69, as it happens for those who might be getting a credit for coverage purchased through the Marketplace, but this requires yet another form and another set of instructions. Last year, this line did not exist, but there was a blank space, baby, called Reserved.
This is what happens in its absence:
Well, let’s see:
I took a secrured [sic] car loan in Jan 2013 for a MINI Cooper S Turbo. This is the car on the finance documentation. I have realised since that I have actually got a base model MINI Cooper. The signed loan docs are wrong. Where do I stand legally? I was lied to at the dealership by both the Vehicle and Finance sales people into thinking I have the MINI COOPER S TURBO. Will I be entitled to a refund of the money paid so far?
It took you two fricking years to discover you didn’t have the turbo? It’s a darn good thing you’re in Jolly Old, Dickie-boy, because you’d be laughed out of an American court with a tall tale like that.
I’ve been drinking Stella Artois lately, but tonight I noticed that they have reduced the size of their bottles from 12 ounces to 11. I was suspicious when the 22 ounce bottles started showing up. Now my suspicions are confirmed. The anti-fun people are still trying to put the screws to us, one ounce at a time.
They can pitch it as having 8 percent fewer calories, I suppose.
I’ve now placed two orders with meh.com, and two things seem worth mentioning:
Well, that and the fact that the product descriptions are about 40 percent nastier than Woot’s ever were.
You never know when something like this may pop up:
— Filip Ekberg (@fekberg) February 15, 2015
I have no idea what the words outside the dialog box mean, but I suspect a Blue Screen of Death is either imminent or present.
Why, yes, your personal information was jeopardized. Want to know what we’re going to do about it? Take a guess:
[B]ecause I have BC/BS health insurance … well, I wasted a good part of Friday morning on the phone with the credit bureaus getting holds/fraud alerts placed on my accounts, because apparently our information was among that in the Anthem breach. Now someone is telling me I need to contact the IRS and tell them not to process any address changes put through in my name in the next x period of time … and I just can’t. I can’t call that awful phone-tree and try to figure out whom I need to talk to and get kicked out three separate times and have to go through it again like I did the last time I had a problem. I’d hope that Anthem would do something towards taking care of that for us, or if they won’t, I guess I just file as early as I can and hope no one is going to try to use my SSN for nefarious purposes.
It would be most unkind to point out that, no thanks to a far bigger scam than mere identity theft, the IRS and the health-insurance industry are now joined at the hip. This is like Cthulhu hiring an adjunct.
We’ve also been warned to watch out for e-mail scams offering us credit monitoring, supposedly in the name of Anthem. It’s like, “You ALREADY have my personal information, this just adds insult to injury.”
A two-for-one deal! Expect Leviathan to promote the hell out of it on social media.
They took it one step further: what if the price were jacked up, not by $0.009, but by $0.0099? Another $14 million for the month, another $170 million for the year, and besides contrarian cranks like me, hardly anyone would even notice.
Fractions of a penny aren’t a significant amount of money, so we don’t really pay attention to them. That might be what the dollar store chain 99 Cents Only is counting on. They don’t exactly hide that everything in their stores costs 99.99¢ rather than 99¢, putting that information on customer receipts and even on shelf tags. Does that make the store’s name misleading, or is it okay to round down?
One customer decided “misleading”:
One customer noticed and was annoyed enough to file a lawsuit against the company, which ended with them posting signs explaining the additional .99¢ price hike. The company blamed the need to raise their prices almost imperceptibly on inflation.
But of course.