Women's cost more because women will pay more

There’s really nothing very difficult about this capitalism business despite the manner in which it confuses all too many. The capitalists, the bastards, are out to make as much money as they can and bugger you. What ameliorates this is competition from other capitalists. They compete with each other for the ability to lift money from our wallets and it is that, as we decide not to cough up excessive amounts and go for the better offer, that tames the bastards.

And that’s it, that’s really all there is to it. At which point we can explain this very simply:

Women are paying up to 45 per cent more than men for near identical items of clothing, it has been revealed.

In another example of the so-called ‘pink tax’ – when female customers are charged more than men for the same products or services – new research has revealed how a string of leading UK high street stores are charging substantially more for white t-shirts aimed at women.

A plain white tee can cost up to £6 more for a woman than a man in stores like Gap, River Island and H&M – despite women’s clothing often requiring less material to manufacture.

According to the findings, 10 out of the 16 labels assessed charged substantially more for a women’s plain white t-shirt than the equivalent men’s style.

It’s entirely possible to muse on whether the cut has to be different to contain the dab dabs or summat but that’s not what is going on at all. Women will pay more for their t-shirts therefore the capitalists, the bastards, charge women more for their t-shirts. Just because they can.

The women who significantly object to this are already buying men’s version and so the bastards get to market segment. Between those who care more about money than cut – they’re paying the same as the men – and those who care more about the cut than the money are paying more. If all women cared more about the money then they wouldn’t be able to do this.

It’s exactly the same reason that causes pink razors to cost more than blue. People will pay the extra so why the hell not try it on?

Yes, this really is insisting that its women’s own fault. If some significant portion didn’t pay the extra then no one would try to charge it.

Capitalism really is very simple.

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

10
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Spikebloke in spainSouthernerQuentin Voletyrfing Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
bloke in spain
Member
bloke in spain

You’re ignoring the not insignificant fact that, when they’re not complaining about certain items being over priced, women generally want to SPEND MORE MONEY. Why pretty well anything with a designer label on it – preferable prominently displayed or part of the design – will cost 3 times the equivalent un-designer labelled merchandise & will sell like hotcakes.
Anyone who’s had their credit card highjacked & abused when reluctantly accompanying (for the purpose of highjacking said plastic) on shopping expeditions will be aware of this.

Quentin Vole
Member
Quentin Vole

Whereas no bloke in history has ever paid more to get a circular blue and white badge on the bonnet of their car …

bloke in spain
Member
bloke in spain

Recoils in horror! Blokes do not drive the Brixton Taxi. They are not seekers after status. They already have ample.

bloke in spain
Member
bloke in spain

We are talking about a zero sum game here. Any money saved on pink razors & white T-shirts WILL BE SPENT on an extravagantly designed piece of packaging containing something cost about 10 pence to manufacture.

Andy in Japan
Member
Andy in Japan

Its the same reason womens clothes are on the ground floor and mens upstairs; women are more likely to window shop and buy on impulse so the shops want to get their attention. Men (generally) only go in to a clothes shop when they want to buy something so there’s no point putting stuff near the front.

TD
Member
TD

Interestingly, it’s the competition thing that is despised by so many who think we just need a limited number of choices among various products. To quote Bernie Sanders “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.” Yup, appoint a council of presently underemployed Sociology grads (you’ll find plenty working at Starbucks) to determine two or three official cuts and colors, designate one t-shirt supplier, set a price, and then think of the capital that might have been put into additional t-shirt companies that… Read more »

Spike
Member

You heard the Bern, any capital saved by dictating prices will be spent on “hungry children”–in practice, easing the qualifications to get a stigma-free Electronic Benefit Card so the “needy” (including illegal “immigrants”) can have taxicabs wait outside the 7/11 for them to finish dining.

tyrfing
Member
tyrfing

I suppose some years ago the prices would have been set partly by women not really spending their own money.

This doesn’t apply now so much, but it may have been sticky.

Spike
Member

Why would it be sticky? If women suddenly ceased to be willing to pay more, anyone still jacking up the prices of the frilly versions would lose, just as suddenly.

Southerner
Member

OTOH plonk-grade white wine costs less than the red equivalent but then I dare say it’s the filtering the claret through hessian sacks and sumo wrestlers’ jockstraps that makes it expensive.