I partially agree with the first class ticket being a bad example, but the basic idea stands, normally price discrimination just benefits the rich. As for your

I partially agree with the first class ticket being a bad example, but the basic idea stands, normally price discrimination just benefits the rich. As for your last point, I'd be against fixed definitions (as you are I think), but i have seen the argument that discrimination against the rich is just as bad as discrimination against ethnicities, poor people etc., often in the context of progressive taxes, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, discussions about billionaires. And it's at these contexts my (flippant) rhetort flies. If you want the poor person price really badly instead of someone trying to fleece the rich guy (still mainly guys), then become poor. If you don't want to pay a high tax rate above X million income, I'm sure someone else will want to. Etc. The exact threshold is always defined by something else and will vary, and there are of course limits. But in this instance, iff the majority of people benefits from radical transparency (which I'm not 100% on, but sure enough that I'm arguing for it) by being able to negotiate wages and properly asses the financial situation of the country, as well as helping to detect tax evasion via community tipofs(controversial I know, my opinion, not universal etc.), then I'm okay with sacrificing the ability of the wealthy to get good housing deals or hide dynastic wealth. They can always give away that wealth if they want to get better deals, pay less taxes etc. something you can't do with ethnicities, upbringing etc. So discrimination based on wealth is inherently different than those other instances in my eyes and this is what this remark was about