Дебаты о «розовом налоге»: Обсуждение в FriendZone

Women arent even the one facing it in my own research.

Right now that would be a completely different debate

The point is that the pink tax isnt real. And it isnt because it goes across both genders for a marketing strategy.

It is not the same. The pink tax is consistent across hundreds of items. Random price differences are not the same pattern. Women are systematically charged more. That is proven and it is not equal..mdjdjdjskdjwokwsolidlwkosdl

Insert gif Peter Griffin crashing out

Have you ever heard of the marketing strategy "whoever is willing to pay more"?

So again you contradicted yourself.

It isnt towards women.

That is a marketing strategy across everyone.

It is not for everyone. The gap consistently targets women. It follows a clear gender pattern not random pricing. That is not general marketing. That is gendered markup

Oh my gosh. You realise the market strategy is for all genders and targets both men and women?

Whatever gender is willing to pay more they will charge more for the gender for either male or female.

I genuinely cant this is getting so funny now. Men and women are both priced differently for who is willing to pay. This is across both genders and isnt just for one gender.

This is called a marketing strategy honey.

Calling it marketing does not make it fair. Marketing does not mean charging more for the exact same item just because of gender. The studies show this happens consistently to women. That is not normal strategy. That is discriminatory pricing and it should not be accepted.

A simply google search also says that there is a so called "blue tax" (only because I mentioned pink tax) and yes its a marketing and pricing strategy and isnt a true thing.

So you see how unfair it is to have blue and pink tax?

Its called being upset over a marketing strategy.

Being upset over it doesnt mean its true.

If both exist then both are unfair. That is the whole point. It is not a competition. It is wrong to charge more based on gender no matter who it targets. One unfair thing does not cancel out another. We should be against both. That is why we are talking about it.

If both things are unfair to both genders then what makes it unfair?

Nxjxjcjcduudfjjgkgkfkdo

Share ur cheesecake plz

Then you would be causing everyone to live in pain due to you finding a marketing strategy unfair.

That's what your implying

The supply chain would collapse, the shortages of essential goods. the loss of labor

If everything that was nearly identical was the same price then we would have local shortages.

Fair pricing will not collapse supply chains. Companies still profit they just lose unfair extra markup. Essential goods do not disappear when priced equally. Scotland proved free period products work with no shortage. Fair prices are not dangerous. They are just equal.

Smaller and local shops would collapse and be unable to compete. Monopolies would form without the pressure of competition and the products themselves would rapidly decline.

Local shops wouldnt be able to catch up with the fair pricing and with the high costs in more rural areas they would have empty shelves.

What you are stating would drive the standard of living down into the ground.

Equal pricing does not kill small businesses. They compete on quality not unfair markup. Monopolies form from overcharging not fair prices. Products stay good and become more accessible. Fair competition helps everyone, I live in a place where everywhere you go people have small stores literally attached to their house, they not only have competition with other stores but also provide convince

if everything identical had the same prices then the standard of living would collapse entirely.

Your means of "unfair" would drive people out of business and cause more harm than good.

Coca cola and the cheap knockoff "Cola" brand are unfairly priced based on whos willing to pay more even if their taste is exactly the same.

Everyone is charged differently on who is willing to pay more.