The Pink Tax

Why Women Pay Higher Prices for the “Same” Products

By

Mises.org

February 20, 2016

 These days it seems that everything in our lives revolves around taxes. Taxation has always caused problems. Taxes distort the structure of production and the price system reducing the real wealth of society.

Yet not everything that people consider a “tax” is indeed a tax. A tax is something that a person is forced to pay, under threat of punishment, by the government. This does not include what has become known as the “pink tax.” The pink tax is the notion that women pay more than men for products that are female-oriented. For example, those who believe in the pink tax often claim that women pay more than men for razors and that these women’s razors are the same product as men’s razors.

Men and Women Are Not Identical

When discussing the pink tax, we can dispense with the notion that women pay more money for exactly the same products that men use. In order for goods to be identical, the two products must be viewed ashomogenous units by the consumers themselves.

Clearly this is not the case, and hygiene products — even ones designed to do similar things — are viewed differently by men and women. First of all, men’s and women’s products generally smell different from one another. This fact alone is enough to distinguish them as separate products if the sexes treat the products differently.

Moreover, in terms of physical amenities, men’s and women’s razors are different in a number of ways. As indicated here, women’s razors are often larger and have more stuff around the blades to help women shave a larger area.

Women pay more for dry cleaning and haircuts. This is partially due to the fact that women’s dry cleaning and women’s haircuts takes more time, and is more labor intensive. More importantly, female consumers of dry cleaning are willing to voluntarily pay the higher prices. But these facts haven’t stopped some from calling for a federal law outlawing differences in prices.

Perhaps the largest “injustice” related to the pink tax is the fact that women often pay more for health insurance. As pointed out here, however, women are more likely to have chronic health conditions. And, as studies suggest, women use health care services differently than men.

Prices Are Not Arbitrary

The cost of producing a good will affect the price, but ultimately, how the goods are valued, relies on the subjective valuations of the consumers. This valuation manifests itself in the form of objective money prices, and it is the consumers who actually determine what products are on the market, and what the price of these consumer products will be.

In the case of hygiene products, it must be remembered that men and women have different standards of hygiene leading to very different demand curves.

Thus, prices in a functioning market will be set at the point where the aggregation of the supply and the demand schedules intersect. That is, it will be set at the level where both sellers and buyers can agree to voluntarily exchange money for the goods.

Companies must set the price as close to this equilibrium price as possible because above this price the company will have a surplus of product to sell, and if it is below this price the company will have shortages, causing a loss in revenue. This works for whole industries too; if suppliers of women’s products are actually charging a higher price for an identical product, and reaping profits, then other firms will start producing women’s products, thus increasing supply and, ceterus peribus, drive prices down.

By continuing to buy differently priced goods for men and women, the consumers have indicated that they think there is nothing wrong with there being price differentials between men’s and women’s products. On the contrary, this “price discrimination” is achieving the most efficient distribution of goods to those who value them the most. If the two different products were truly the same, then women would simply buy the male version of the products.

Moreover, nobody forces these women to pay more for the products they purchase. These products reflect what a woman deems as her most preferred product on the market with given prices. In an unhampered market, there are no correct or incorrect prices. There are only the prices that people freely choose to pay. To believe that women only buy women’s products that are identical to men’s due to clever advertising campaigns would be to assume that women have no brains and can be endlessly manipulated by firms. If this where the case, why would companies not just raise their prices for all products and shift most of their funds to advertising?

This Is Not About Equality

Supporters for abolishing the nonexistent pink tax do so under a façade of “equality,” and many groups who believe in the pink tax advocate for legislative action to force companies to lower the price of women’s products so they are equal to prices charged for men’s products. This is nothing more than a form of price control, which as shown here, eventually leads to very bad things.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

John Dotson is an undergraduate student at the University of Georgia, and is studying Political Science and Philosophy. After graduation he plans on going to graduate school to obtain a Ph.D., and become a professor of Political Science. John has been a sustaining member of the Mises Institute since December 2015, and attended the 2015 Austrian Economics Research Conference and Mises University 2015. He is also the founder of the University of Georgia’s Young Miseans Club.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

Ron Paul on State Theft and More

Myth-Busters: Theft Is Always Wrong

Streamed live on Feb 25, 2016
Politicians and their supporters are always trying to justify government redistribution. Excuses are everywhere, but theft is always wrong. Ron Paul tackles the issue. Also, who’s responsible for 9/11? Don’t look to Republican debates for that answer. This episode of Myth-Busters covers these topics and more. Check it out!

Be sure to visit http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com for more libertarian commentary.

From YouTube, here.

Meir Ettinger On His Torturers

Meir Ettinger, In His Own Words: The Delicate Bridges

BY ON

The following article was Meir Ettinger’s most recent blog post. It was written just before he was arrested and it was posted on August 4th on Hakol Hayehudi in Hebrew, once he was already in jail. Some of Meir’s blog posts have been cited in the media as part of the evidence against him. Here we present one of Meir’s posts and allow the readers to judge for themselves whether it is grounds for administrative detention.

Did Moti Yogev burn the house in Duma?

This past week we’ve witnessed an all out attack by the media on Jewish terror. Representatives of the state of all stripes and sizes have condemned these recent attacks. Yet beyond condemning the attacks, they have really been assaulting Jewish values as a whole while hiding behind the guise of condemning violence or murder.

What they really mean can be heard in the words of those who were less successful in hiding their true motives. For example we can look at Yair Lapid, whose words we will quote below since they reveal what the self-proclaimed “knights of justice and equality” are really fighting.

Yair Lapid said (translated from the original Hebrew), “We’re at war. He who stabs young people at a Pride March, the terrorists who burned a baby in Kfar Duma- they are the enemy. Those who burned the Church next to the Kinneret- they are the enemy. A person who throw stones at security forces- he is the enemy, because stones kill. Members of Lehava- they are traitors who assist the enemy at times of war. He who threatens to attack the Supreme Court with a D-9 bulldozer- is a traitor helping the enemy at a time of war.”

What is the connection between Moti Yogev and the home in Duma? What is the connection between Lehava that opposes assimilation and the arson of a church? The answer is simple, Lapid is inciting a culture war. The media outrage and assault is not really about compassion for innocent victims or opposition to violence it’s about sticking it to those with Jewish pride.

Culture War

Yair Lapid, speaks for all of them. He knows how to explain himself clearly and he understands that the media assault is not about burning a house, or about innocent victims. It’s not about violence or murder. It’s not even about how we conduct our wars or about the boundaries of the law. Lapid’s war is a culture war.

But still, how can we be so sure that it’s not human life and murder that matter so much to those in the media? The answer is in the way they so casually relate to the lives of Jews. They silence murder committed by terrorists and they create rules of engagement with stone and firebomb throwers that put Jewish lives in danger. The media and the left blatantly support Arab terror against Jews and by extension, at the very least, are indifferent to Jewish life.

So if human life is of little concern to them, why the media assault? Once again one of their own, President Reuven Rivlin, said it best in his own words. “Sadly, until now we have dealt with Jewish terror lightly. Perhaps we did not internalize that against us stands a dangerous, determined, ideological group that has set for itself the goal ofdestroying the delicate bridges we have so carefully constructed. I believe that the more we recognize that we are standing against a real danger to the State of Israel, we will be more determined to fight them and uproot them entirely. “

So what are those delicate bridges so carefully constructed? The answer can be found in the concept that has been absent from Rivlin’s lips the past year. Rivlin has worked tirelessly to distort and render meaningless the entire concept of ‘Judaism.’ In Rivlin’s (and many others) opinion, a Jewish State can be both “binational” and “Jewish” at the same time. The national identity of the Jewish people is not related to its uniqueness in contrast to the nations of the world, and Jewish identity is certainly not related to fulfilling the Mitzvot. Everyone must respect one another’s view, even if it violates one’s own beliefs.

Rubi Rivlin has worked to blur the lines between a “Jewish State” and the policies those very words imply. He has tried to claim that distorted, liberal, modern culture encompasses Jewish heritage. He stands guard over all the imaginary and false bridges he has built between Judaism and leftist, liberal democracy.

The Shin Bet is not a security agency!

The Shin Bet has for many years been running to the media claiming that it is terrorism when Jews uproot a tree or commit other petty crimes in response to the Arab intifada, which, in contrast, the Shin bet has tried to silence.

The Shin Bet shouts in our ears, “Jewish terror, Jewish terror, Jewish terror,” while at the same time attempting to cover up and ‘contain’ the daily incidents of stone throwing and molotov cocktails committed by Arabs. The Shin bet has transformed acts of protest committed by teenagers who could no longer bear the daily attacks against them, into terrorism. In committing these actions the Shin Bet has led many Jews to the realization that the agency responsible for their security and safety, has the blood of dozens of Jews on its hands. Rather than protecting Jews’ safety, the Shin Bet has acted as a political tool.

This is the same Shin Bet that calls Arab terror, “popular protest.” They consider firebombs thrown at vehicles, “popular protest.” This is the same Shin Bet that thinks so little of Jewish life that they have closed checkpoints, and reopened security roads to Arab traffic. And why? All in order to guard the “holy, delicate bridges.”

The head of the Shin Bet (during the release of prisoners in the Shalit deal) took personal responsibility for the murder of Malachi Rosenfeld, Dani Gonen, and all the other Jews who would yet be murdered by the terrorists who were released. These are not the hands of an organization that cares about the safety of Jews, rather those of a group attempting to shape public opinion behind the scenes. It is for that reason that they redefine protest as terror and terror as protest. It is for that reason that they draw such silly cartoons and create imaginary hierarchies of ‘secret, underground,’ Jewish terror organizations. All for one reason- to guard the identity of the State of Israel as as that of leftism and assimilation.

So what can we do against this media assault? For one, we simply must not be alarmed. Against the delicate bridges of liberal culture being thrust upon us, we must rekindle the bonds that connect us to a love of G-d and our Jewish heritage.

“They” have delicate bridges, bridges of lies. It is said that the Hebrew word for ‘lies’ has no feet and thus that lies have no foundation. Therefore they are scared and stressed, but we will not fear their media assault. “I am a wall” says King Solomon- our connection is strong and it gives us the strength to stand up against all the imaginary walls and smokescreens to say without fear what is truly a Jewish State.

From Hakol Hayehudi, here.