Pink Tax
Kailee Corica
With Women’s History Month just closing, the Pink Tax is something on every woman’s mind.Though this tax has been around for decades, the discrimination is still a solid issue between genders. The Pink Tax refers to the price difference between female-specific and male products throughout various companies. Whether it’s toys, clothes, or toiletries, women pay a slightly higher cost. The reasoning for this discrimination is because it’s speculated that women are willing to pay the higher amount, not taking into consideration that some products are a necessity. These unequal prices have brought to light the issues some women have with making ends meet.
To prove the issue was real, researchers brought an immense amount of data to the table. In 2015, a study was done comparing 800 products from over 90 different types of brands to see the price differences between genders. The study included comparisons from toys, clothes, and accessories. In the category of toys, girl’s entertainment costed an average of 7% more than boys, otherwise known as “general” products. Furthermore, within the price differences, there were only slight changes between products. For example, a girl’s scooter costed $49.99 while a boy’s scooter costed $24.99. The only difference between products was the color. This main example from the study furthers the point of the pink tax. The other significant difference in prices was from personal care. Data showed that female care products costed 13% more than mens. Necessities like hair care, shaving accessories, and deodorant had at least a dollar increase for women. This aspect of the pink tax enrages women especially because of the generic nature of personal care. The chart to the right highlights the personal care prices between genders. Going in accordance to the 2015 study, women’s deodorant and lotion were most notable. The justification from companies for these results is because women have a need for more “luxurious” items as opposed to men. Companies take advantage of the overused excuse, “women are willing to pay more” to use a reason for raising their prices for specific products. However, female consumers are affected most by this. Not all personal care items are a “luxury”, and are in fact a necessity, which companies fail to acknowledge.
While understanding both sides of the argument, the Pink Tax should have an end put to it. Regardless of the gender, products are necessary for living. The reasoning is, is because if companies keep their prices higher on female products, the demand will decrease, resulting in a loss of profit for producers. With the Pink Tax covering both economic and gender issues, there should be more done to end it.
Works Cited
Kellner, Lindsay. “Yes It Is More Expensive To Be A Woman. Here's Why.” Mindbodygreen, 31 Jan. 2018, www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/what-is-the-pink-tax.
Ngabirano, Anne-Marcelle. “'Pink Tax' Forces Women to Pay More than Men.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 29 Mar. 2017, www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/03/27/pink-tax-forces-women-pay-more-than-men/99462846/.
This was interesting because I'm a girl and have never even noticed this. I think it's pretty darn unfair and don't really understand why it's more expensive and think that there should be a change. And the fact that companies think that "woman are willing to pay more" is crap because I totally don't think that way and I know no other girl does either.
ReplyDeleteThis was interesting because I'm a girl and have never even noticed this. I think it's pretty darn unfair and don't really understand why it's more expensive and think that there should be a change. And the fact that companies think that "woman are willing to pay more" is crap because I totally don't think that way and I know no other girl does either.
ReplyDeletePutting social issues aside, I'm not sure that I agree with your last statement "the demand will decrease, resulting in a loss of profit for producers". In a capitalist society like the U.S. companies are always trying to maximize profit, and to do that they often try out various prices for their products in order to find the equilibrium price which is where they eventually settle at. Considering that your data shows a consistently higher price for women's products, that must mean that producers are making more money at these prices, hence meaning that the equilibrium price for women's products is higher than men's. I say this confidently because there is no way that companies would be willing to sacrifice profits in order to push some sexist agenda; people care about money far too much. If you have a problem with the higher prices then make a statement to the producers by buying the equivalent men's product where applicable, showing that you aren't willing to pay a higher price. If enough women do this then the prices will certainly be reevaluated and probably lowered.
ReplyDeleteThis is something that I do not believe I have ever heard of before though I did know that prices tend to be higher for female products I had no idea why. Knowing more about this, I do think something should be done to end it because girls do not choose to be girls and some products are actually a necessity which is not something taken into consideration when they slap a price and tax on it. Higher prices for female products is honestly a little degrading considering they would assume to make it higher because "women tend to be willing to pay a higher price". The pink tax should have more done about it and a lot of problems that are unnecessary could be solved.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to pricing differences things are already expensive but with the Pink Tax it makes it that much more. I always noticed little differences like the cost of razors, or the cost of deodorant but because women are more inclined to pay those extra few bucks more for the necessities, it isn’t right to have companies feed off of that. What happens for women who are on food stamps and have kids to feed. Does she not get more deodorant because it is too expensive? Some women have allergies to certain products (including myself) that makes it the reason why we are more willing to pay the extra few bucks more. Some people may say that the off brand stuff works just fine but in some cases, the name brand stuff is needed. This tax should stop immediately because sooner or later, women are going to come after these companies more that they already do for this tax just because of their gender.
ReplyDeleteI’ve always found this interesting because I’ve never noticed the major difference in price until 2016. When I first learned about Pink Tax, I also found it unsettling. I just really disagree with companies abusing the demand of females. The government should regulate the prices of necessary female product. What needs to happen with companies, is that they need to understand what is actual going on in their customers heads, and what they actually want. They keep lying so they have a weak excuse to overcharge, and “steal” money.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that charging women extra money for the same product with a different color is ridiculous, but if women don’t like it, then why don’t they just not buy the product? Women can always just buy a different color scooter, it's the same thing. You can even paint it if you want it to be pink that bad. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s really fair to compare women products to products for men, because it is completely different. If men wanted to spend more money on the best shampoo and conditioner then they would, but they could care less. Same goes along with other products that women buy at an increased price. They are willing and need to buy more than men, generally, and that is not anybody’s fault.
ReplyDeleteI never knew about the pink tax until now, however I find it very interesting that like other said, the government is feeding off of the claim that "women are willing to spend a little more". When really they are trying to by every day necessities. Although we do spend the extra money for these things now (because we have to) I do think that it is a far deal to have these extra taxes removed, as they are rather unfair.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of a pink tax or woman tax is stunning. I have heard in the past and have compared the different brands at the stores with their prices for girls and boys products. Its amazing to me the social issues connected to the products and the economic issues connected to them. Women should not have to pay more than men for general products. What is the reasoning behind the price changes? What makes the women's prices inherently more expensive than their male counterparts prices?
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting that so many women’s products have a higher price than men’s products. Like your scooter example, just the color costed $25 more, which is outrageous. Companies should eliminate the pink tax because it is unfair for women to have to pay more for the same product.
ReplyDeleteThis was very interesting to read especially because I've never heard of the Pink tax before. It seems very similar, if not the same as, the tampon tax. I agree that some of these products, like toiletries, and lotions are more expensive, but overall people have the choice of what they should buy too; meaning that these women do not have to buy the more expensive product if there is a less expensive option. However, what doesn't seem right to me is that when people have presented these issues to the companies, they make excuses as to why they are more expensive.
ReplyDeleteI feel like demand for some of these overpriced products will decrease soon. Although people can’t boycott some of these products--like you said, lots of them are necessities--people can look to buy from brands that more closely match the price point of the men’s. Furthermore, women’s rights is a controversial topic right now, which should increase awareness of the Pink Tax. If everyone knows about it and openly disputes it, companies will be coaxed into making a change.
ReplyDeleteYou brought a very important debate to light, this has been a hot topic for a long time and it needs to be further acknowledged. Women do pay in total far more than men do for necessities, especially, when you add on feminine care prices that are taxed as a luxury item.
ReplyDeleteAs a female, I never knew of this tax. This is both surprising and alarming at the same time. I agree that there needs to be more equality between the prices of the products. Also, if there is a change in the pink tax, this could potentially be beneficial to the economy by increasing consumer spending.
ReplyDeleteThis tax is unfair that women have to pay more for the same exact things men are getting for less. The huge difference in price between the scooters is ridiculous just because of the color. I don't think it's necessarily true that women are willing to pay more because I like to spend as little money as possible and it's unfair that women are being charged more.
ReplyDeleteI find this article very interesting. From an economic standpoint, companies usually only raise the price of goods if the demand is high enough or there's few enough suppliers. While I haven't done any research to justify this hypothesis, I would assume that majority of women care more about personal hygiene than men, which may be part of the reason for the pink tax. However, I believe that this pink tax has become so ingrained into American society that it's no longer a derivative of standard economics, but has become more of a cultural norm that many Americans accept as a part of daily life. Bringing more attention to this matter would surely help to eliminate the problem because the only thing stopping women from buying men's products or vice versa are the associations of certain products with certain genders.
ReplyDeleteOverall great article and I'd be very likely to recommend it to a friend.
I didn't realize just how high women's products were charged compared to men's products. I understand that most women want higher quality products wanting to be "prettier" and have nicer skin however the price increase on women's products is completely unnecessary. Although women are currently buying products that are still priced high, there are certain brands like Elf that are coming into market that offer cheaper yet still high quality products that meet women's needs. If the market continues to keep women's products highly marked, then companies like Elf will soon begin to kick out the other competition.
ReplyDeleteI feel that there is two separate categories that must be made here to truly discuss the issue at hand, those being the necessities and the luxuries. I have always balked at the extreme costs that come alone with girl's hygiene, and believe this is an issue across companies. However, in some cases where the "pink tax" is applied, I simply do not understand why it works. If people believe that girls and guys are truly using the same razor, then why do people spend the extra money to have a pink handle? When it comes to the luxuries side, I actually agree with the companies that girls are willing to pay more for their beauty, and for this reason I do not see significant changes to this tactic coming anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteAn important thing to keep in mind is that in a competitive such as shampoo or razors or other such hygiene item, companies don't get to arbitrarily choose their prices. Prices are set by the supply and demand of the market. With that in mind, the price differential between male items and female items can't come from gender discrimination, but from natural differences in supply and demand between the two markets.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very interesting that there is such a huge cost difference between products. I agree that many of these products, are purchased by women because of necessity, not wanting. It would be very beneficial if society were to find a way to lower the price point for women's products, despite the higher demand.
ReplyDeleteCrazy to see that there is such a big difference in prices between the products. I agree with greg that the prices are not determined by the company, but they are determined from the supply and demand of the economy.
ReplyDelete