> Our results call into question the need for and efficacy of recently proposed and enacted legislation mandating price parity across gendered products.
When equality would benefit men then suddenly it's questionable?
When equality would benefit men then suddenly it's questionable?
There are still areas where women see problematic price discrimination, such as at car dealerships. (First degree price discrimination?) The crux of their argument is that the best way to deal with that, if at all, is through more transparent pricing as according to their research women are capable (en masse) of forcing fairer pricing when they can more easily comparison shop.
> For categories with ingredients data, the average pink gap is slightly larger, at 15.0%. However, when we condition on formulation, unit prices for women’s products are on average 0.05% less expensive per unit.
This is saying that when you control for formulation, for the ingredients, the gap is 0.05%. For similar products, which is oddly shoved into an numbered footnote,
> a comparison of products with comparable formulations, women’s products are 2.6% less expensive.
In any case, any sort of price control is bad for the consumer, so I'm opposed to the idea on principle.