Sexist Price Discrimination?

“Are Shoe Brands Charging You More Based On Your Gender?” asks Footwear News. The website cites data compiled by Datafiniti showing that high-end footwear brands tend to price women’s shoes higher than men’s. As examples, the median price of a Gianvito Rossi pair of women’s shoes was $750 versus $469 for the gent’s.

Such data has become increasingly of interest following the New York City study entitled “From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer,” which was then replicated by The Times newspaper in London, both purporting to show that women were discriminated against in pricing terms for a range of everyday products. Particular examples in the surveys included children’s scooters, women’s hair products and razors. This comes alongside previous studies from the University of Central Florida and Consumer Reports, which found that women tended to pay significantly more for deodorant, haircuts, and dry cleaning.

Does all this show “sexist” pricing and discrimination against women?

Here’s some economics to bear in mind which might explain why the prices of goods might differ in these types of surveys:

  1. There can be cost of production differences in some cases: often men’s clothes and shoes tend to be more standardized than those targeted at, and bought by, women. This explains why both women’s clothing and dry cleaning of that clothing can be more expensive too, given the clothes cannot be handled in the same way. It does not seem a stretch of the imagination to suggest that women’s hair cuts tend to be more expensive as a function of length, time, and the variety of tastes as well.
  2. Though things like different colored razors have the same functional uses, the branding and designs are themselves part of the product. It might be that many women place inherent value on some products being branded as “for women” or else enjoy the scent, colors etc. Indeed, there is nothing to stop women buying male or unisex branded products (some women I know do), suggesting the continued existence of gendered variants is evidence of demand. Prices that maximize profits will be higher for women than men if women are less responsive to price (i.e. have more inelastic demand). This might be because of greater attachment to brand, or because women perceive products tailored to women as being of higher quality.
  3. For some products targeted at women, women may buy fewer units of any given brand relative to men (on products where women prefer variety), which would (other things given) lead to higher prices too.
  4. The surveys themselves may be biased towards standardized products with male and female versions. Tyler Cowen speculates, for example, that women might (on average) have a relative taste for variety and quality on these type of low value products, whereas men tend to spend more cheaply on these but more on products not differentiated by gender (such as automobiles, electronic sound systems etc).
  5. The example of nightclub cover charges, where women frequently obtain “free” entry, shows that for some goods and services men tend to pay more than women. Even in the shoe study, the data shows that the median price for moderately priced sneakers tends to be higher for men than women’s shoes. A pair of Nike women’s shoes was $80 vs. $85 for men. Some of the above economics might explain this (particularly the elasticity explanation), but with things such as nightclub nights the charge may help cover for probability of externalities – i.e. drunken violent behavior. Another example of this is vehicle insurance, where men tend to pay more than women for near identical products due to higher costs associated with a tendency towards more risky behaviors for men.

As seen then, there are many different rational explanations for why different prices might be charged for products targeted at different genders. This is certainly not an area where there are obvious “market failures” which justify government intervention.

The implicit criticism by some of this practice seems to be opposition to the mere existence of “gendered” products at all. Indeed, in a debate I had on the subject in the UK, my female opponent claimed that women did not want products to be “gendered.” If this is true, it suggests there is an exceptional entrepreneurial opportunity for companies to develop more unisex products. 

What’s Missing from Apple’s Latest Lobbying Disclosure Form

MacRumors has a piece out today noting that Apple has raised its lobbying game in Washington over the last six months, spending $3.6 million on a team of lobbyists who’ve visited House and Senate offices on issues ranging from “general patent reform” to “green technology” to “issues related to implementation of Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act.” What’s missing from the lobbying disclosure form is any mention of federal government surveillance practices, whether it be Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act or that nasty encryption-related battle Apple had with the FBI in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting in 2015. 

As Reuters noted earlier this month, the tech industry generally has been rather quiet about FISA reform, though members of the Reform Government Surveillance consortium (of which Apple is a member) like to point to a letter they sent to key Congressional committees earlier this year as evidence of their committment to getting NSA and the FBI to clean up their acts on domestic surveillance. But as the old saying goes, talk is cheap.

Apple, as the richest and most successful tech company in human history, certainly has the resources to make it’s lobbying campaign–or even a surveillance reform-focused PAC–far more robust and politically threatening to pro-Surveillance State House and Senate members. That it has declined to do so to date is telling. Until Apple and the other members of the RSG make it clear to House and Senate members that there will be a steep political price to pay for failing to rein in NSA and the FBI, don’t expect significant domestic surveillance reforms to make it into law.

Time to Cut U.S. Foreign Aid Programs

The federal government funds an array of aid programs aimed at promoting growth in less-developed countries. Funding goes to federal agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, and it also goes to international aid groups, such as the World Bank.

The federal government spends more than $30 billion annually on foreign aid. Aid spending has more than doubled in the past two decades. The Trump administration has called for substantial cuts to foreign aid spending.

Ian Vásquez has published a new study on foreign aid at DownsizingGovernment.org. He argues that despite the political enthusiasm for aid, there is little evidence that it is effective. Indeed, it is often counterproductive. There is no correlation between foreign aid and economic growth, and efforts to condition the receipt of aid on market reforms have failed. As such, Ian argues that the federal government should end its development aid programs.

However, Ian also discusses the good news on economic development. Decades of experience show a strong relationship between economic growth and market-oriented policies. Countries eager to improve living standards can do so themselves with domestic reforms, such as securing property rights, reducing arbitrary and bureaucratic regulations, and encouraging entrepreneurship and investment.

Ian’s new study on foreign aid is here.

 

Fatal Fallacies in the War on Terror

As I argue in my recently published policy analysis here at Cato, the American-led war on terror has clearly failed. Unfortunately, rather than accept the obvious fact that the campaign was badly misguided and focusing homeland security efforts in more fruitful areas, the Trump administration appears ready to embrace, and perhaps even to escalate, the American commitment in the Middle East. Though President Trump himself has frequently voiced concerns about nation building in Iraq and the mission in Afghanistan, few of his senior advisers appear to share his worries. And sadly, few voices from the foreign policy establishment have questioned the need for continued American intervention.

The near total lack of debate begs a simple question: Why do so many smart people support the continuation of a strategy despite its abject failure over sixteen years and in the absence of anything even remotely approaching a new theory of victory?

Though there are undoubtedly many different contributing factors, one important cause is the influence of several mutually reinforcing fallacies about terrorism and the use of force.

The first of these is the “political will” fallacy. This is the misguided idea that the United States can outlast the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other local actors simply by illustrating sufficient political resolve. Once the terrorists and insurgents understand that the United States is truly  “in it to win it” they will admit defeat. The reality, however, is that resolve is not something the White House can create. Resolve is a force that stems from how meaningful the objective is to a nation and how much its people are willing to pay to achieve it.

Given this, America’s adversaries clearly enjoy a decided advantage. Local actors like the Taliban have a tremendous stake in the outcome in Afghanistan – it is their home, after all. Americans, on the other hand, are rightly dubious of the value of slugging it out for a country of little significance to their security. Thus, much as happened during the Vietnam War, no matter how much firepower the United States brings to the fight local adversaries like the Taliban will always have greater resolve to keep fighting.

Sessions’ Civil Forfeiture Memo: It’s Not Just the Money

Yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reanimated the suspended Department of Justice program that allows local police to circumvent their own state laws to profit from seizing property from individuals who have not been charged, much less convicted, of a crime. Over at Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, I wrote that this may have the unintended consequence of increasing racial profiling on American roads:

Virtually everywhere police stops are counted and measured demographically, black and/or Hispanic drivers are over-represented in those pulled over and subsequently searched for contraband. The vast majority of searches of drivers across ethnicities come up empty, and statistics show that black and Hispanic drivers who are searched are less likely to be carrying contraband than whites who are similarly searched.

Stopping drivers to search for drugs and drug proceeds is much cheaper than developing leads and building cases against large drug organizations through buy-and-bust operations or long-term stings, making interdiction through traffic stops all the more appealing. For that reason, while the disparity in stops almost certainly exists independent of asset forfeiture laws, increasing the use of forfeiture will likely result in an increase of racial profiling.  

These traffic stops that officers initiate to search a car aren’t the typical traffic stops many Americans have experienced. These stops are intrusive, probing, invasive interrogations that are designed to get presumptively innocent people to give up their right to not be searched. These stops are degrading, and the people who experience them–disproportionately black and Hispanic drivers–resent being treated like criminals with something to hide. As I wrote in the Case Western Reserve Law Review, this can diminish police legitimacy in minority communities and thus can erode public safety.

New Poll On Dodd-Frank and CFPB Tells Us Poll’s Creators Like Dodd-Frank and the CFPB

There’s been some buzz this week about a new poll that, according to its creators, shows overwhelming support for Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). A stunning 74 percent of respondents, the creators claim, support Dodd-Frank while 77 percent support the CFPB.

But what has not been as widely reported is how skewed the questions were. Given the questions, it’s surprising there was not more support for Dodd-Frank and the CFPB. 

Consider the question that resulted in the 74 percent support Dodd-Frank figure:

Now please listen to this description of the Wall Street Reform law that was passed after the financial crisis. In addition to requiring federal oversight of a larger range of financial companies, this law also prohibits banks from certain risky practices, and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to fight against abusive financial practices that hurt consumers. It also bans taxpayer-funded bailouts of large banks and financial companies and, instead, sets up a system where investors rather than taxpayers bear the losses of bank failures. Please tell me whether, overall, you favor or oppose this law.

No more taxpayer-funded bailouts? No more socialized losses and privatized gains? Sign me up! I would love a law that does this. Except the very reason that many people, including me, oppose Dodd-Frank is because of the belief that it does just the opposite, that it entrenches the too big to fail concept and makes bailouts more likely down the road. The debate over Dodd-Frank is not pro-bailouts versus anti-bailouts, or pro-accountability for bad business choices versus anti-accountability. No one is advocating for bailouts or taxpayer-funded losses. The debate is over whether the particular provisions in Dodd-Frank are likely to lead to more bailouts or fewer, whether the law increases the chances of another crisis or decreases it. 

This question also lobs a number of very nuanced and deeply controversial terms at the respondent – words like “risky” and “abusive” – with almost no context.  What is the optimal level of “risk” for financial institutions, who should assess “riskiness” and how risk can be adequately hedged are questions at the core of ongoing debates over the cause of the 2009 financial crisis and future policy considerations. Labeling a set of practices as “risky” is conclusory and deliberately ignores any existing controversy.

ObamaCare: What Trump Should Do Now

With President Donald Trump frustrated all over again with congressional Republicans’ inability to coalesce around a bill repealing and replacing ObamaCare, it seems like a good time to dust off this National Review Online column where I offer 14 ways Trump can pressure Congress and build public support for legislation:

1. End Congress’s illegal ObamaCare exemption.

2. End ObamaCare’s unconstitutional cost-sharing subsidies.

3. End ObamaCare’s illegal “reinsurance” payments.

4. Block Big Insurance’s “risk-corridor” raid on the Treasury.

5. Investigate the Obama administration’s illegal spending.

6. Allow freedom of conscience and choice in contraceptives coverage.

7. Illustrate how Americans can avoid ObamaCare penalties.

8. Illustrate how ObamaCare makes it easier than ever for people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage.

9. Publish ObamaCare’s vital signs.

10. Release the documents.

11. Praise states that refused to implement ObamaCare.

12. Direct states to prepare for ObamaCare repeal.

13. Renounce IPAB.

14. Let seniors opt out of Medicare without losing Social Security benefits.

To its credit, the Trump administration has been doing some of #9. But not enough. Read here for more.

Pages