The Women’s Tax

(YouTube link)

The “women’s tax” is a real thing. Products and services tend to cost more when they are gendered, meaning they are labeled to sell to women, or they are painted pink. There are plenty of examples in this video from The Daily Share. Commenters immediately pointed out that men pay more for car insurance because they cause more accidents, which is kind of like long-term care insurance for women. If we could get men to drive better or women to die younger, things would even out, but neither sex really wants to make that sacrifice. As for the products, I learned long ago that buying merchandise in the men’s aisle (unscented, please) can save money over time. The dollars add up fast when shopping for children’s clothing. -via Time


Comments (6)

Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

Also, the discrepancy in health insurance costs isn't just living longer, it's mostly the whole "having babies" thing. So women who don't have babies have to bear higher insurance costs for the ones that do because, of course, men have no part in that.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I'm not saying this doesn't exist, but it seems some of these price differences (for products) are purely anecdotal. Without knowing all the factors that play into pricing I don't think you can just say "women's tax". The razors for instance aren't exactly the same. Maybe the women's razor costs more to produce, or that women buy less of that razor compared to men so the price is slightly higher to match supply and demand.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
True, that's why I mentioned it in the post. Insurance is a totally weird business separate from the other products and services. And sometimes the stats they use don't make much sense. Last time I moved, our car insurance doubled because we moved less than half a mile -into another county! The company said it was because the drivers in this county cause more accidents. But we are the same safe, over-50 drivers we were before we moved! No matter. We switched to a company that didn't go by county stats.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
This guy really needs to go back in time and look at licensing. He's COMPLETELY off base on the reasons being tech related. He's comparing a betamax made in 1977/78 to a VHS made in 79. A year in tech does reduce weight. But big deal, you didn't carry the machine around.

The betamax died out in the mid 80's do to the same reasons MiniDisc, and 7" audio disks died. Sony kept the tech proprietary. The tapes, discs, whatever material had to be bought along with the machines, from Sony ALONE. At Sony's prices. Which are, even today, still at the top of the bar for consumer electronics. The VHS was licensed freely and had very strong competition driving down costs on both the machines and consumables along with raising competition for features on the machines. But Sony tech stagnated and did not continue to keep up with feature upgrades since they were not making the sales.

This simply a case of keeping too tight a hold and not having a strong enough brand to carry the price tag. Apple runs this risk as well. And, as competition increases giving other devices and OSes equal footing, Apple continues to loose market share. JUST LIKE Sony. It's simply a case of market econ.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
  6 replies
Login to comment.
Email This Post to a Friend
"The Women’s Tax"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More