Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hope on October 12, 2016, 09:46:15 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37611512
Apparently, this New York pharmacy is subjecting male customers to a 7% 'Man Tax'.
OK, it's a bit more complex than that, but what do folk think of the idea?
-
Sounds like a really good way of alienating half their customers.
-
Sounds like a really good way of alienating half their customers.
I think they are making the point that the current situation does exactly that. But if you want to make women pay more, off you go.
-
I accept that there are some items which are gender-compatible - such as razors, toothbrushes and hairbrushes, but aren't many of women's items gender-specific? Aren't some men's stuff, such as beard trimmers, also gender-specific? Is part of the issue that pharmacists no longer sell pharmaceutical products only?
-
Was there a time pharmacists only sold pharmaceutical products? Did they ever not sell razors?
-
I think they are making the point that the current situation does exactly that. But if you want to make women pay more, off you go.
It's the manufacturers who determine the prices of goods, the retailer has little control. If a retailer starts a pseudo-political campaign that alienates half of their customers, sales are likely to suffer, so I would say it would be a really bad idea.
-
It's the manufacturers who determine the prices of goods, the retailer has little control. If a retailer starts a pseudo-political campaign that alienates half of their customers, sales are likely to suffer, so I would say it would be a really bad idea.
what's the difference between a retailer and a manufacturer here? Why are you supporting women being charged more simply for being women?
-
what's the difference between a retailer and a manufacturer here? Why are you supporting women being charged more simply for being womeb?
(I note the 'When did you stop beating your wife' type mechanism you employ there)
There are two issues:
1/ Do women actually pay more than men for equivalent goods?
2/ Are the actions of this retailer likely to do any good?
The answer to the first question is far from straightforward because of the difficulty in determining what is equivalent. My initial reaction would be to say that it is false simply on the basis that we have a very competitive market for all goods today. In a competitive market there is nothing to be gained by discriminating against a particular group of consumers.
The answer to the second question is that it's one of those pointless gestures that you seems to favour so much.
-
The first question you are already stating is determined by the market, whatever the charge is, in any situation, by your approach is right, even when it changes.
As to the second, again by your own approach it is part of the market so must be right. Perhaps you need to think it out again
-
The first question you are already stating is determined by the market, whatever the charge is, in any situation, by your approach is right, even when it changes.
As to the second, again by your own approach it is part of the market so must be right. Perhaps you need to think it out again
A free competitive market will ensure that goods sold at the lowest price. There is no reason to believe that is not happening or that it is somehow skewed in the way you suggest.
There are possible reasons why there might apear to be an infairness. I would imagine that some female products are inherently more expensive than equivalent male products and possibly women tend to demand higher quality in some items e.g. perfume.
-
A free competitive market will ensure that goods sold at the lowest price. There is no reason to believe that is not happening or that it is somehow skewed in the way you suggest.
There are possible reasons why there might apear to be an infairness. I would imagine that some female products are inherently more expensive than equivalent male products and possibly women tend to demand higher quality in some items e.g. perfume.
This posits a fully functional market with no outside influences (e.g. vat on tampons) and a fully informed market place based on just rationality. So not a useful rational assumption.
Oh and it also assumed the action of the retailer to be outside the market, which is additionally illogical
-
A free competitive market will ensure that goods sold at the lowest price. There is no reason to believe that is not happening or that it is somehow skewed in the way you suggest.
There are possible reasons why there might apear to be an infairness. I would imagine that some female products are inherently more expensive than equivalent male products and possibly women tend to demand higher quality in some items e.g. perfume.
But is the lowest possible price necessarily the right price, LA? For instance if, as we have seen with milk and supermarkets here in the UK recently, the (re)-seller sells it at a price that is the same as or less than the cost of production (and doesn't take that hit in their own profits but expects the original producer to carry that loss of profit) won't it eventually lead to a rise in price when the 'local' producer goes out of business?
Or what about materials that are sourced from abroad, such as cocoa or bananas, which are purchased by our 2nd stage manufacturers at a pittance, and sold on at a low price - but still a sizeable profit? This is, in part, why the cultivation of drug-producing plants exploded in some parts of the developing world in the mid-20th century.
-
This posits a fully functional market with no outside influences (e.g. vat on tampons) and a fully informed market place based on just rationality. So not a useful rational assumption.
Oh and it also assumed the action of the retailer to be outside the market, which is additionally illogical
I think it's appalling that so many people are ignorant of the basic workings of business (personally I would make Business Studies a part of the National Curriculum)
Firstly the VAT on tampons is a tax issue and therefore totally outside this discussion.
If you have a market with several suppliers prices will be kept at a low level PROVIDED THERE IS NO CARTEL OPERATING. Governments can make laws that help or hinder this process, but it is to no ones advantage to discriminate against a particular group of consumers.
I suppose that the particular retailer in question might gain from the publicity they generate but in reality, they are the ones guilty of discrimination and will probably lose customers.
-
I think it's appalling that so many people are ignorant of the basic workings of business (personally I would make Business Studies a part of the National Curriculum)
Firstly the VAT on tampons is a tax issue and therefore totally outside this discussion.
If you have a market with several suppliers prices will be kept at a low level PROVIDED THERE IS NO CARTEL OPERATING. Governments can make laws that help or hinder this process, but it is to no ones advantage to discriminate against a particular group of consumers.
I suppose that the particular retailer in question might gain from the publicity they generate but in reality, they are the ones guilty of discrimination and will probably lose customers.
You are simply restating a faith in the market which is not justified. Further since the retailer is part of the market, you would, were you being consistent, simply have to accept it as part of the market working efficiently.
As to consumers, it's not about people being ignorant but that a fully functioning market assumes perfect knowledge, something unachievable.
-
You are simply restating a faith in the market which is not justified. Further since the retailer is part of the market, you would, were you being consistent, simply have to accept it as part of the market working efficiently.
I'm not 'restating a faith in the market' - I'm telling you that that is how it works.
If you want to experience the alternative I suggest you visit Venusian or North Korea.
The retailer in question is one small element of the market and they are probably not acting in their own best interests.
As to consumers, it's not about people being ignorant but that a fully functioning market assumes perfect knowledge, something unachievable.
I think that posting displays some of that ignorance.
Of course there are fluctuations and variations in pricing, but that generally reflects supply and demand. What might seem like anomalies usually have a good cause. For example convenience stores tend to be more expensive than larger Supermarkets or discounters - because that are more convenient and some people are prepared to pay for that.
I really don't understand your difficulty.
-
You keep describing the market as if it's a perfect market and then arguing that bits of it aren't. It's just logically inconsistent.
-
But is the lowest possible price necessarily the right price, LA? For instance if, as we have seen with milk and supermarkets here in the UK recently, the (re)-seller sells it at a price that is the same as or less than the cost of production (and doesn't take that hit in their own profits but expects the original producer to carry that loss of profit) won't it eventually lead to a rise in price when the 'local' producer goes out of business?
Generally people prefer to pay less for a product - why wouldn't they?
In the case of milk producers the underlying fact is that we currently have too many milk producers and market prices are low. If we subsidise a product that is already oversupplied the situation gets worse, so the only real solution if for us to produce less milk, which will mean some farmers ceasing milk production.
Or what about materials that are sourced from abroad, such as cocoa or bananas, which are purchased by our 2nd stage manufacturers at a pittance, and sold on at a low price - but still a sizeable profit? This is, in part, why the cultivation of drug-producing plants exploded in some parts of the developing world in the mid-20th century.
I agree that 'ethical sourcing' is a complex problem. I think that the only real solution would be for the actual producers to take more control over their industries. If you are just producing a basic commodity you are always going to be subject to the swings of world markets but if you can 'add value' you will be in a much stronger position.
-
You keep describing the market as if it's a perfect market and then arguing that bits of it aren't. It's just logically inconsistent.
I'm saying that it exists
-
I'm saying that it exists
What exists? The market? No one has said it doesn't.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37611512
Apparently, this New York pharmacy is subjecting male customers to a 7% 'Man Tax'.
OK, it's a bit more complex than that, but what do folk think of the idea?
That is disgusting, men and women are equal! >:(
-
That is disgusting, men and women are equal! >:(
Except the shop is making the point that they are not equal in the charges for similar products.
-
What exists? The market? No one has said it doesn't.
OK, let me elaborate.
'The Market' is the term I use for a free system of buying and selling. Suppliers offer their products and buyers are free to choose what they think is the best buy. Prices are determined by supply and demand. High supply reduces prices, high demand raises them, so prices are determined by the 'Law' of supply and demand and you can observe that law in action everywhere from the Commodities markets to the sale of illegal street drugs.
Just as Newtons laws make no distinction between the Saint or the Sinner falling of a cliff (they both accelerate at about 9.8m/s/s) so the law of supply and demand has no moral dimension, it just works. However, it will tend to 'punish' discrimination.
To return to the case in hand, if a particular retailer were charging women higher prices than men it wouldn't take too long before word got around and other retailers anxious for the business made it know that they did not discriminate and the original trader would 'mend their ways' or go bust. I remember in the 1980's I was in the States and there was a lot in the media about businesses 'chasing' the 'Pink Dollar'. Business's had just cottoned-on that Gays had a lot of money to spend and were going mad to get a slice of that market.
So there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the market for women's goods is actually 'rigged' against them. The market segments defined by 'Male' and 'Female' are pretty broad, but what I suspect is happening is simply that women (on average) tend to be more discriminating in their choice of goods than men.
If I can give an example:
Although I normally use an electric, I have a cheap Wilkinsons razor. I use it only occasionally and it is very basic but it works fine. My wife purchased a female razor and it is very stylish and comes in a nice case but it was several times the price of mine. Occasionally she can't find hers and uses mine and it works equally as well - so she has paid more for something that does the same job but (maybe) has a perceived higher value. Of course there is nothing preventing any woman buying a mens razor.
-
Anyone who thinks that the law of supply and demand are equivalent to acceleration understands neither concept.
-
Anyone who thinks that the law of supply and demand are equivalent to acceleration understands neither concept.
Both are 'quite good' approximations to reality.
-
Both are 'quite good' approximations to reality.
No, one is a scientific observation, the other isn't and is changeable. The 'law' of supply and demand is based on perfectly informed, perfectly rational consumers - do these exist?
-
No, one is a scientific observation, the other isn't and is changeable. The 'law' of supply and demand is based on perfectly informed, perfectly rational consumers - do these exist?
You might make that criticism of a great many biological laws but that doesn't stop them from being useful - and I notice that you have chosen not to comment on the main points I made in my earlier posting.
-
You might make that criticism of a great many biological laws but that doesn't stop them from being useful - and I notice that you have chosen not to comment on the main points I made in my earlier posting.
because at base you have made a huge category mistake comparing a physical law and one based on an unjustifiable assumption. The egregiousness of the error undermines any if the other points.
-
because at base you have made a huge category mistake comparing a physical law and one based on an unjustifiable assumption. The egregiousness of the error undermines any if the other points.
No, I was simply pointing out that like gravity, the law of supply and demand does not have a moral dimension - it just operates and is a very good model of reality. However if you are going to split hairs (as you obviously are) - how good are Newtons laws at predicting the motion of a proton in the LHC?
-
No, I was simply pointing out that like gravity, the law of supply and demand does not have a moral dimension - it just operates and is a very good model of reality. However if you are going to split hairs (as you obviously are) - how good are Newtons laws at predicting the motion of a proton in the LHC?
actually you have essentially been claiming that the market is 'right' in precisely a moral fashion since your position is somehow that the shop was wrong.
-
Of course, what we don't know (says he, getting back to the OP) is whether there is any equivalent in the statutes of New York City, New York state or the United States of America federal law to the Equality Act 2010 of the UK.
If there is, then the behaviour of the pharmacy is unlawful.
-
I must admit to being a bit confused by this.
Sure there are pharmacy products that are gender specific - tampons being the obvious example.
But in most cases isn't this mere marketing, targeting a particular type of shampoo at women (or men) when it would work just as well for male or female hair. If women are susceptible to marketing hype and are prepared to pay over the odds for a product marketed at them, but in no way actually gender specific (see above) then surely more fool them.
-
I think the shop is effectively just drawing attention to the fact which may not be known. Further the article makes clear that this is an issue with other products such as clothes, in which case comparative shopping may not be easily done. We are back at the issue with the market, in that consumers are not perfectly informed.
-
I think the shop is effectively just drawing attention to the fact which may not be known. Further the article makes clear that this is an issue with other products such as clothes, in which case comparative shopping may not be easily done. We are back at the issue with the market, in that consumers are not perfectly informed.
I'm not sure what issue the shop is trying to draw our attention to.
Is it that marketing is used to make a product more attractive and therefore able to command a higher price that its core value. Well, sure, but that isn't going to change any time soon. And it applies to all sorts of products and I don't see that there is targeting purely at one gender if you look at things in the round.
So it may be that companies are able to command a premium price for pharmacy products and clothes marketed at women because men would simply go 'I'm not paying that, are you mad'. But the reverse is true in other areas - particularly technology where I'm sure many women are bemused at the desire of men to folk out stupid money for the latest marketing gizmo.
-
Surely the issue is about equivalent products, I don't see how that fits in with gadgets.
-
Isn't the aim of marketing to do whatever works no matter how obscure it may seem?
Another thing about marketing isn't it at the spearhead of keeping people employed?
ippy
-
Surely the issue is about equivalent products, I don't see how that fits in with gadgets.
But as I pointed out previously there are very few actually gender specific products, although there are many that are specifically marketed at men or women.
So I can buy shampoo - all shampoo will wash hair, but some are marketed specifically at one gender or the other. I think manufacturers probably think that they can attract a premium price for a product marketed at women on the basis that they are prepared to pay more, while most blokes aren't interested in the marketing and just want something that washes their hair (I understand the marketing drive toward men is changing, but this is for the sake of argument).
But the reverse is true with other products. So, for example TVs - I have little doubt that much of the 3-D 4K definition, curved screen, with super motion control, automatic contrast adjustment etc etc marketing is largely aimed at men who love the notion of having the latest gizmo with all the latest features (most of which they will probably never use) - so men are likely to be susceptible to the marketing gimmicks and pay a premium when many women would be content with a product that simply works (just as in shampoo the other way around).
-
When you shut and then lock the doors of your car and then hear the low whir of the motors winding in the door mirrors folding themselves back out of harms way, ecstasy, you haven't lived if you haven't had an experience of this kind, an experience no woman would ever be able to understand.
ippy
-
Sure there are pharmacy products that are gender specific - tampons being the obvious example.
FTR Sanitary Towels do have broader medicinal uses, they are used to aid in the healing of particularly deep, or awkward wounds. I was encouraged to use them as a young man following the removal of a pilonidal cyst.