4 ms·

> Our results call into question the need for and efficacy of recently proposed and enacted legislation mandating price parity across gendered products. When e

> Our results call into question the need for and efficacy of recently proposed and enacted legislation mandating price parity across gendered products. When equality would benefit men then suddenly it's questionable?

airza 4y ago
That is a very weird takeaway from this paper...
vikinghckr 4y ago
The paper literally reaches the opposite conclusion to what you just said. In any case, any sort of price control is bad for the consumer, so I'm opposed to the idea on principle.
sokoloff 4y ago
The price difference found was 0.05% in products with substantially similar key ingredients. Regardless of the sign of that 0.05%, that makes me think that the market has sorted this out.
- deathanatos 4y ago
  The complete context: > For categories with ingredients data, the average pink gap is slightly larger, at 15.0%. However, when we condition on formulation, unit prices for women’s products are on average 0.05% less expensive per unit. This is saying that when you control for formulation, for the ingredients, the gap is 0.05%. For similar products, which is oddly shoved into an numbered footnote, > a comparison of products with comparable formulations, women’s products are 2.6% less expensive.
phantom_of_cato 4y ago
throwawaysleep 4y ago
Pretty much. Yet more institutional sexism against men.
wahern 4y ago
Their research suggests that the market already effectively prevents the form of price discrimination targeted by legislation--so-called third degree price discrimination. On balance, third degree price discrimination disfavors men, but only by 0.05%. Whereas so-called second degree price discrimination disfavors women by 11%. However, in second degree price discrimination there are often actual, substantive differences in the product, for example additional ingredients like moisturizers, so the "discrimination" is at least partly rooted in costs and preferences. There are still areas where women see problematic price discrimination, such as at car dealerships. (First degree price discrimination?) The crux of their argument is that the best way to deal with that, if at all, is through more transparent pricing as according to their research women are capable (en masse) of forcing fairer pricing when they can more easily comparison shop.

airza 4y ago

That is a very weird takeaway from this paper...

vikinghckr 4y ago

The paper literally reaches the opposite conclusion to what you just said. In any case, any sort of price control is bad for the consumer, so I'm opposed to the idea on principle.

sokoloff 4y ago

The price difference found was 0.05% in products with substantially similar key ingredients. Regardless of the sign of that 0.05%, that makes me think that the market has sorted this out.

deathanatos 4y ago
The complete context: > For categories with ingredients data, the average pink gap is slightly larger, at 15.0%. However, when we condition on formulation, unit prices for women’s products are on average 0.05% less expensive per unit. This is saying that when you control for formulation, for the ingredients, the gap is 0.05%. For similar products, which is oddly shoved into an numbered footnote, > a comparison of products with comparable formulations, women’s products are 2.6% less expensive.

phantom_of_cato 4y ago

throwawaysleep 4y ago

Pretty much. Yet more institutional sexism against men.

wahern 4y ago

Their research suggests that the market already effectively prevents the form of price discrimination targeted by legislation--so-called third degree price discrimination. On balance, third degree price discrimination disfavors men, but only by 0.05%. Whereas so-called second degree price discrimination disfavors women by 11%. However, in second degree price discrimination there are often actual, substantive differences in the product, for example additional ingredients like moisturizers, so the "discrimination" is at least partly rooted in costs and preferences. There are still areas where women see problematic price discrimination, such as at car dealerships. (First degree price discrimination?) The crux of their argument is that the best way to deal with that, if at all, is through more transparent pricing as according to their research women are capable (en masse) of forcing fairer pricing when they can more easily comparison shop.