AnonymousSource: Office of Sen. Jackson
Charging more for a pink children’s helmet over a blue one could be outlawed under legislation introduced by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) today. Senate Bill 873 would make it illegal to charge customers different prices for substantially similar goods on the basis of gender.
“Women not only earn less on average than their male peers, they also pay more for similar products. This ‘pink tax’ is unfair, unethical, and harms women and families everywhere. When women are held back financially, we all suffer,” said Senator Jackson.
From toys and clothing to personal care products, items for female consumers cost more on average than those for men. The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs examined 800 products available nationwide for their report From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer, and found that women’s products cost 7 percent more on average than similar products for men. Women’s products cost more 42 percent of the time while men’s products cost more 18 percent of the time.
According to the report, the “pink tax” starts at birth with girls’ toys costing more 55 percent of the time, and continues into adulthood with women’s personal care products costing more 56 percent of the time.
Gender-based price discrimination for services, such as dry-cleaning, is currently prohibited in California under the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995. Senate Bill 873 would expand this prohibition to products like razors and t-shirts.
In 2001, Senator Jackson authored Assembly Bill 1088 to improve compliance with the Gender Tax Repeal Act by requiring certain businesses to disclose the standard pricing they charge and to provide consumers with written price lists upon request so they could evaluate the price differential for themselves. The bill was signed into law.
SB 873 is supported by the National Association of Women Business Owners, California chapter. “The National Association of Women Business Owners California Chapter (NAWBO-CA), which represents the interests of over 1.5 million women business owners across all industries in this state, is pleased to co-sponsor SB 873, which would repeal the Pink Tax by prohibiting gender-based price discrimination for consumer goods sold in California. While the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 was an important first step toward greater economic equity for women in California by preventing discriminatory pricing for services, it did not prevent discriminatory prices charged for goods. As a result, female consumers continue to pay more than male consumers for the same products; this needs to change. SB 873 aims to do just that,” said Hilary Lentini, President, National Association of Women Business Owners, California.
Women in California earn an estimated 88 cents for every dollar a man earns, amounting to an average annual wage gap of more than $7,000. Gender-based price discrimination further compounds the problem and results in women paying thousands of dollars more over the course of their lives to purchase similar products as men.
Jackson represents the 19th Senate District, which includes all of Santa Barbara County and western Ventura County.
Interesting – and I cannot disagree with personal care products, for example. Funny though, I have purchased many an item that is pink because it is cheaper than the gender neutral version. You want size large compression sleeves for running? Pink ones 5 bucks cheaper. Same goes for certain items of clothing, some carseats and baby items. A lot of items that are needed by both genders are actually cheaper in pink.
Our pink products are probably a tenth of a percent of our black products, if that(exact same product). There is absolutely no economies of scale in building them. All of the same paperwork and processing goes into this product whether we make one unit or a run of 1000. Not to mention we are ordering a few hundred molded pieces from our vendor instead of tens of thousands. Every cost along the way is higher for this pink product. I don’t think we should be dinged for this, not to mention, these are mainly purchased by males anyways.
REX- agreed. I’m a lifelong liberal and am blown away at this. This is absolutely absurd. I buy my sons’ bike, baseball, skate, ski helmets and the prices are always the same. Softball helmets may be more expensive, but that’s because they have face masks attached.
Well, be prepared to pay more for them. One of the many unintended (yet clearly visible ) consequences to this piss poor waste of time legislation pushed through solely to help her reelection efforts.
This new law ensures that no woman, or Das “I am a Feminist” Williams, will ever be forced to overpay for their Pussyhats.
Well thank dog they’re no charging more for pink profilactics. Blue ones aren’t attractive on anyone.
About time…..I’m darn tired of my wife having to pay double for pink paper straws vs just plain paper straws
Central planning at its finest. HBJ, what about tractors? How many colors should we be allowed?
Contrary to the misunderstanding of right wing fools, this is not about things that are literally pink, it’s about the added cost of items that are primarily used by females.
JQB, I don’t think anyone here thinks this is literally [only] about things that are the color pink and all their points are still valid. JQB, it is also okay to agree with some of the “right wing fools” you’re constantly calling names. Even for the hardcore feminists this is a hard bill to justify as a wise use our state’s legislative powers.
Red Solo cups cost more than blue ones. Same exact size, same exact cup. This is because of marketing & product placement, but it does happen.
Getting back on-topic – if this is what Hannah-Beth Jackson is focused on, then she seriously needs to re-assess her priorities. And we need to get rid of her – vote her out!
I think the problem is with the colors. I suggest she pass a law making grey the only state approved for any manufactured item. Problem solved.
JQB – just a suggestion….you should use gender inclusive pronouns here…saying females is unacceptable…I thought you’d be more woke than that
MP805- thanks for the chuckle.
I’m happy about this. There are certain items from the same company that are the SAME THING that charge more because it’s branded as for “women.” The most obvious one is shaving razors and cream. And statistics don’t lie, “girls’ toys costing more 55 percent of the time, and continues into adulthood with women’s personal care products costing more 56 percent of the time.”
Total BS!
Thanks for getting this much-needed legislation going, Hannah-Beth. Bravo!
In my long life, I have never seen a higher priced item based on color. And besides that, who decides which colors are for guys and which for gals? This is a ridiculous waste of time and tax dollars. Who is going to police every single item and compare prices between gender differences anyway. What the heck is wrong with the people in this state?????? Dry cleaning is based on garment, not the sex of the person who wears it. What if it’s a male cross dresser getting a delicate dress dry cleaned? What then? I can go on, but I have to go back to work to my meaningless job that guys may or may not get paid more for…..Ugh.
Sen. Jackson is so incredibly out of touch with the the needs of her constitutes she should be impeached for dereliction of duty. How many State employees do we now need to hire (and provide health care / retirements benefits for) to determine when items are “substantially similar” and enforce this new bill? What all this BS feel good legislation misses is that it will probably cost the state more than any potential savings to consumers. What if the fix is to just raise prices on all “male”
goods so everything to be equal? Well that will screw the CA consumer. And how sexist is this? To call it a “pink tax”? What is stopping women from just buying the cheaper priced “male” goods? And how many laws on the books is just too many!? WASTE OF OUR GOVERNMENTS VALUABLE RESOURCES!!!
Higher priced 5-7% of the time. Scandal. Collusion. THE most important thing I can imagine my Government legislating.
Perhaps the demand for pink items is lower than other colors resulting in lower production volumes and correspondingly higher costs. Regardless, I believe every law like this achieves the opposite of its stated intention. The “affordable care act” is a prime example of that. If passed, I predict Jackson’s bill intended to reduce the cost of “pink” items will instead increase the costs of all items. In addition, I predict an increase in online sales for out of state vendors as consumers avoid the increased costs and a corresponding reduction of sales for local brick and mortar stores that are subject to Jackson’s law.
More silly nonsense from HBJ, who obviously never took an economics course. No one forces women to pay more for the products they purchase. The market determines what women buy. Women buy products because they prefer them. Are women that stupid that they only buy women’s products that cost more but are identical to men’s due to clever advertising? Are women that easily manipulated? How sexist. This is typical arrogant, condescending paternalistic Progressive nonsense.
Jesus, Mary and Jerome, does Taxin’ Jackson have nothing better to do? Aren’t her term limits up yet? I’m a veteran liberal, but I’d vote for any Republican who ran against her. It’s wankers like her who give the Orange Buffoon the ammunition he needs to slam Democrats.
Thanks Mom for looking out for all those impacted by this gross injustice! So glad you’re protecting us from such vile behavior by people who prey on the meek and the mild. Oh and the color blind…. What on earth would we do without you and your record number of superfluous bills?
Why are we sick of HBJ??? Because she refuses to address REAL ISSUES at hand that affect our quality of life (Homeless/Vargrants/Drug addicts/Roads & Infrastructure crumbling away)…
JQB 1st, which part of my comment is not “honest” 2nd how could you possibly know when someone commenting online is being honest or not? 3rd you’re really going to blanket every single one of my comments as not honest “as always”? 4th while you do bring up valid points occasionally they are all cheapened when you make comments like this one.
Okay all you boutique woman’s clothing stores listen up! “Your Gal” Hannah wants you to lower prices now! All this Pink on Pink price gouging is intolerable!
vibrators too
As a woman, this is total poppycock. The ONLY part of this – if it’s even included which I’m not sure it is – is addressing the BS “luxury” tax on feminine hygiene products [I refer only to tampons and maxi pads, not other products] as those are not “luxury” items they are necessities and we’ve been paying luxury taxes on them for years which I do think is wrong. As for the rest it is complete crap, gender baiting and all for optics. Which is why I am now an ex-democrat.
HBJ is a disgrace. Failing infrastructure, homelessness, mentally unstable people, immigration problems, drug addiction, opiod crisis, failing schools, broken families… but she decided to go for this? How proud she must be. No more paying extra for the “pink stuff” and right now more than one person is having dinner out of the garbage cans and dumpsters in downtown SB. How progressive. How woke. How disgusting we hired her and she is failing.
Many comments from stupid people here. Some not getting the point and some simply sexist.
For certain products it is most certainly a matter of economics and scale of production. To be fair to manufacturers we should increase prices so profits are fair when providing these important gender-based options.
Reading comprehension is at an all time low. So many comments bashing HBJ but hardly anyone took the time to understand this isn’t about things being more expensive if they are the color pink. It’s about companies and vendors charging more for things that are marketed or sold primarily to women. Ever take a man’s shirt and a woman’s shirt to the dry cleaner? They can be the exact same brand,white button down, poly cotton blend, no frills but the woman’s shirt will be $2-$4 more to clean than the man’s. I go to get me hair trimmed, all one length just a trim will cost me $50+ what does a haircut cost at the barber? The razor I buy to shave my legs costs at least $2.00 more than the same style that is packaged for a man. This is what is meant by the “pink tax”. I get it if my blouse has a ton of ruffles and is silk and needs special attention, it should cost more to clean. But not if it is the same material and basically the same cut as the man’s shirt and yet it does. That is what HBJ is trying to fix.
@A-1579840742 the tax on feminine hygiene products was already eliminated. What HBJ is trying to do now is eliminate the difference in what men and women pay for similar goods and services. RIght now women pay a premium for a lot of things that we shouldn’t have to like dry cleaning, and haircuts and the example of bike helmets. Why should a family pay more for their daughter’s bike helmet than for their son’s? Girls heads aren’t shaped differently so why the extra cost for a girls helmet? Even deodorant and basic body lotion from the drug store cost more if it’s a “ladies” brand. Why? Why should women pay more for the exact same products and services just because they are women?
And if stores prevented “females” from buying “male” products this bill would be relevant. But that’s not the case and you can just buy the “male” ones cheaper. We shouldn’t be legislating things like this and should focus on legislating solutions to the mentally ill, drug addicted, hungry and poorly educated children…. when we have treatment space for the drug addicted, care for the mentally ill, and our public schools are beast in the country then maybe we can circle around to petty issues like these where there really is no problem (just buy the cheaper version!!!!)
The reason a lot of women’s products are more expensive is that they are more specialized. For instance my wife has a product specifically for washing and moisturizing elbows that cost $12 an oz. And I have a 6 gallon jug of a body wash/ shampoo/ conditioner/ moisturizer/ dish soap/ oven degreaser/ car wash that cost $1.99.
Something doesn’t make sense. Why would anyone choose a more expensive version of the same product? Does it have additional features? Is it branded differently? Does its styling, marketing, or branding make consumers thing it has additional value and is worth more? There must be something different about the more expensive product, otherwise people would simply by the cheaper so-called equivalent option.
Thank you for the male commenters who don’t understand this. I’d be happy to explain. These products are marketed differently. They say things like “unique for a woman’s skin” or curves or whatever. But if a shopper takes the time to compare a woman’s shaving cream to a man’s shaving cream they will notice it has the exact same ingredients. The packaging/marketing is what makes it almost 50% more, not the contents. That is whole point of this. You’re welcome, now keep your sexism in your own home.
yeah because this is such a serious topic that keeps us all up at night….so many bigger problems out there to address.
i have 2 daughters. not once have they asked for a pink helmet. who cares…not an issue unless you make it an issue.
I also consider myself a life long liberal/progressive. I also am offended by the narrow focus of HBJ’s politics and the chip on the shoulder anger that she caters to. Scary from her just as it is scary from Trump. I have never voted for her, though I have abstained a few times. That seems the only option left for people like me.
@ 363 or…the majority of the public agrees that this isn’t an issue worth discussing and its really not a big deal nor is it sexist.
helmets are designed for females and males and also unisex. are you an engineer that designs safety gear? no? neither is hanna beth…
363 um no. the basics are the same, but i assure you, that pink can in my shower smells like a woman. also has more moisturizers in it and skin conditioners and is a higher quality product than my cheap dollar store can of shave all lol…
Chip, because some people don’t pay attention, and when they finally wake up, they act like this (see comments)
363 that changed in the early 1940s. pink was a boys color and light blue was for girls….look it up! google is your friend….
There are many products whose cost varies by color, and it’s not gender discrimination. Pink KitchenAid mixers and pink toilets cost more than the standard ivory one. Blue ones cost more too. The law of unintended consequences plays out here.
It’s not just a lack of reading comprehension, it’s right wing ideology and sociopathy. Most of these people know they’re full of it, but dishonesty is a way of life for them.
Yet somehow statistics and facts prove you’re wrong ZeroHawk. Thanks for being sexist.
@9:34–no one is forcing you to buy the more expensive version. Are we really such slaves to marketing? As a woman, I buy basic bar soap & shampoo that both my husband & I use. Why wouldn’t you just buy the more economical/generic, etc version? BTW, we both bought new rock climbing helmets recently. My pink one (yes, it really IS pink) cost the same as his. We have FAR bigger problems to work on! This isn’t even really a problem if you read labels and shop judiciously.
4:09 your comment confirms exactly what I wrote about you and your kind … “pink” is not literal. She calls it that because that’s what it’s called: https://www.listenmoneymatters.com/the-pink-tax/
Dog, your comment is, as always, not honest.
And yet you still live here. Either it is not as bad as you portray, or you have another agenda.
KKINSB–alas, comprehension is not your forte’ it seems. Your examples are pretty odd and also dated. Laundry/cleaning prices are regulated now and have been for years. But if I choose to go to a hair stylist l expect to pay more than if I go to a barber. That is my choice. If you want your hair cut by a barber walk into a shop and ask her if she want a new customer–I am pretty sure she will jump at the chance.
Give it a rest angry lib.