Some readers aren’t going to like this, but the so-called pink tax reflects economics not gender bias.
Sorry, but sometimes the truth is hard.
The idea of a pink tax is that products aimed at women are priced higher than similar ones aimed at men. The reaction by some has been a series of screeds attacking corporate America as the home of a bunch of evil misogynists.
Their arguments are often like skimpy clothing: Short on substance.
While there may be women-haters in the halls of big business, the evidence regarding the pink tax just isn’t there. In fact, if anything, economics explains any price differences far more easily than bias.
Same economic principles, different circumstances
Men and women buy things in different ways and that changes how retailers price things. The examples often used are with razors or deodorant, but I think clothing retailers provide another useful example.
Constable is an economics/financial markets commentator. Currently, he writes the monthly “In Translation” column for The Wall Street Journal, and a weekly investments column for U.S. News & World Report. He also contributes regularly to Barron’s, TheStreet, Fortune, Forbes.com and other publications.
Prior to becoming a full-time economics journalist/commentator Constable worked in a variety of strategy/advisor roles for major corporations.
His first book, The WSJ Guide to the 50 Economic Indicators that Really Matter, won an economics category award in the 2012 Small Business Book Awards at Small Business Trends. It has been translated into multiple languages. He authored the Rudolf Wolff mini-guides to the London Metal Exchange, and the Real Money Guide to Investing in Gold.