There has been much talk about the so-called ‘pink tax’. This is the claim that products marketed toward women are more expensive than those marketed toward men – that the pink bottle labelled ‘sensual’ tends to have a bigger price tag than the blue bottle labelled ‘revitalising’.
But does the ‘pink tax’ really exist?
After all, there are strong economic reasons to think it wouldn’t. If two otherwise-identical products were priced differently, consumers could just opt for the cheaper one. And the lion’s share of shopping is done by women, so you might expect them to be more price-sensitive.
In a paper published online last July, Sarah Moshary and colleagues put the ‘pink tax’ to the test. (Their paper hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed).
The researchers collated data on the prices of a large number products in categories like soap, body wash, deodorant, shampoo and shaving cream. They then identified whether each product was aimed at men or women – based on purchasing data, text analysis of product descriptions and manual coding by research assistants.
Interestingly, unisex products comprised less than 20% of the total; these were excluded from the analysis.
Moshary and colleagues also identified the main active ingredients in each product – to make sure they were comparing apples with apples (or in this case, shower gels with shower gels).
What did they find?
When the researchers compared products in the same category without considering active ingredients, they found that those aimed at women were slightly more expensive. However, when they controlled for active ingredients, they found that women’s products were very slightly cheaper.
Here’s a map of the average ‘pink tax’ in each state. (The study was based on U.S. data.)
As you can see, it was zero or negative in every single state, meaning there isn’t a single one where men pay less than women for the same products. I don’t see much of a geographical pattern in the size of this ‘blue tax’.
Contrary to claims made by feminists, Moshary and colleagues find no evidence that women face a ‘pink tax’ when shopping for bathroom products. As a matter of fact, it’s men who pay slightly higher prices. And don’t accuse the authors of ‘sexism’ – all three of them are women.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Amazing published on the same day as Labour announce their energy policy.
The BBC might as well be the media arm of the Labour Party
Propaganda Arm of the Liberal Elite. Which is why we junked our TV 20 years ago. Gets worse with every passing year.
“Ah yes science, one gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact” ——-Mark Twain. —-Jeez I really wish Mark Twain was around these days to humiliate this crowd of climate doomsters and their manipulated and adjusted data. Their phony graphs and their cherry picked facts. Their harassing of scientific journals that dare to publish anything remotely indicating there isn’t much in the way of a climate crisis at all, and their blaming of every single thing that happens as “likely due to the burning of fossil fuels”. ——-Who pays the piper calls the tune and it is sad to see that “science” has just become another government department.
Ah yes.
Our old chum Bob “fast fingers” Ward, with his super “Scientific” qualification of PhD in “Paleopiezometry” (failed).
His level of mendacity, incompetence and sheer malice makes even scum like Michael E (hockey-stick) Mann seem fractionally less egregious.
Some of us have been on to Bob Ward and his sinister employer for some time. Indeed, using libel laws has been a tactic of Grantham/Ward for some time, but it has long been the case that only the Guardian has much sympathy for Bob’s activities. He pops up on Sky News’ from time to time but he isn’t the most appealing of advocates.
Grantham is more interesting. His interest is very much in Biomass (destroying plants and trees in the fight against CO2), and that his wife is something of a green zealot and, er, photographer.
Indeed it has long been the case that it isn’t so much the billionaires that are so dangerous when it comes to the damage done by the promotion of eco-lunacy but their idiot wives, worse, ex-wives. After all it was Laurie David, ex-wife of Larry, who ‘produced’ Al Gore’s now risible ‘An Inconvenient Truth’…
Maybe DS should do an expose into ‘billionaires’ wives’
I guess she no longer photographs trees.
The BBC hails making the poor poorer. The true purpose of collectivism, socialism, communism is to hand more power to the state and create dependency.
“A similar ‘scientists’ stunt was pulled last month by Damian Carrington in the Guardian, who polled 400 so-called scientists and in an ocean of emotional guff concluded the world is heading towards a “semi dystopian” future.”
Well this Carrington quack was right on the last bit but he needs to be more assertive; he can drop the “semi.”
I hate these people.
Carrington etc are inadequate ppl who couldn’t repair a puncture on their bike but think they can reorder the energy grid/world. The true purpose of their actions is to offload their self hated and loathing on to everyone else.
If you are a scientist and don’t subscribe to any kind of alarmism you will never have the distinction of being classed as “distinguished”. You will be a “maverick”. A bit of an odd old chap due to retire to his bungalow looking over the Sussex County Cricket Ground where the sooner he gets the white hanky on his balding dome the better and let the “distinguished scientists” deal with the impending climate catastrophe that somehow requires no evidence but SSSSSHHHHHH. You don’t need evidence in Post Normal Science, all you need is a show of hands from a bunch of government funded data adjusters.
1,931 signatures of more qualified people saying “There is No Climate Emergency” at the World Climate Declaration
https://clintel.org
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WCD-240529.pdf
We control things on many levels that most aren’t aware of. The forces of human mood and mind do have a profound effect on the level of moisture in the atmosphere. But these people know nothing about this. Their postulates are essentially the opposite of the truth because they are ultimately predicated on human misery.
If Blairites (such as Cameron – Clegg) can run government policy on the basis of The End of History (Fukuyama) it is a small jump to running public policy on the basis all science has been done and nothing is left to learn.
Looks like I should have gone to
Barnard CastleSpecsavers before reading the names of the ‘climate scientists’. I could have sworn ‘Karen’ was the middle name of every one of them.The notion and audacity of subjecting the nation with such BS is reprehensible & who could have exposed these charlatans better then themselves
I work (aged 79) for a company that benefits from the EV push. Therefore I benefit. Exactly the same principle applies to the signatories.
As a trained scientist/engineer and with some experience IMHO there is no scince associated with climate change, particularly the forecasts for the next 75 years. However there are a lot of politics so an pushback against the climate narrative must be a political one, hence the letter pushing one way
If I push the other way, I may lose the benefit I receive. People vote with their pocket.
The green idiots who support this nonsense are best represented by this comment (on one anti comment that the BBC had removed):
“I agree they shouldn’t open comments on this topic. All you get are right wing science deniers shouting slogans and facile misconceptions. Reform are swimming in oil money. But you wouldn’t think that matters, I’m guessing?”
I bet Nigel wishes that Reform were swimming in oil money.
It’s funny how when you quote scientific research at these people they claim you are shouting slogans.
Ha ha ha hilarious. The BBC are the biggest comedy show these days.