Rethinking Equity in an Unequal Economy

Right now, the cultural conversation is fixated on a “loneliness crisis” among men, painting a picture of isolation and emotional drift. But in the background, quietly and without fanfare, millions of women—particularly single women—are navigating a world where life is not lonelier, but more expensive, more bureaucratic, and still stubbornly unjust. While men mourn the loss of connection, women are calculating the cost of independence. And the cost is high.

While men mourn the loss of connection, women are calculating the cost of independence.

From puberty to post-menopause, a woman’s life is marked by financial hurdles men simply don’t face. Consider the Pink Tax—a term used to describe the markup women pay for everyday goods and services. A 2021 analysis from The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that, on average, women’s products cost 7% more than similar items marketed to men. Personal care items such as razors, shampoo, and deodorants were often 13% more expensive. Over the course of a lifetime, this tax can cost women an estimated $82,000 more than men for the same basic products and services.

This disparity isn't limited to drugstore aisles. It bleeds into housing, lending, and insurance. Despite the fact that single women are more likely than single men to buy homes—accounting for 17% of homebuyers compared to 9% for single men—they often face higher mortgage rates. A 2020 study from the Urban Institute revealed that single women pay 0.4% more in interest rates, even when controlling for credit profiles, leading to tens of thousands of dollars in additional costs over the life of a loan.

Meanwhile, gender-based wage disparities continue to shrink at a glacial pace. In 2023, women earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men. For Black women, the number falls to 69 cents, and for Latinas, just 57 cents. These wage gaps mean women not only earn less but pay more—for everything from health insurance to dry cleaning to co-pays.

A 2021 Harvard Medical School study found that women make 32% more healthcare visits than men over their lifetimes, resulting in higher cumulative out-of-pocket costs. From birth control prescriptions to fertility consultations to postnatal care, women are charged for having a body that requires regular, ongoing medical support—support often minimized or pathologized by a healthcare system not designed with them in mind.

And yet, as women increasingly opt into singlehood—not because of bitterness, but because of boundaries, ambition, and agency—they are creating new paths to live well, alone. This pivot has created new models of living, including shared home ownership with friends, cooperative child-rearing communities, and informal financial partnerships outside of romantic coupling. But still, there is little cultural or economic infrastructure to support these choices.

So here’s a question worth posing to the culture:
If we accept the existence of the Pink Tax, why not propose a Pink Discount?

Imagine an economy where women are charged not more, but less—a recalibration of pricing to reflect their unequal earnings and higher baseline costs. What would that look like? For every dollar a man spends, a woman would pay 82 cents. For Black and Latina women, even less—69 cents and 57 cents, respectively. This wouldn't be a handout; it would be an economic course correction. A systemic acknowledgment of the compounded financial injustices women face.

Economically, the Pink Discount is not as radical as it sounds.

A 2022 report from McKinsey estimated that advancing gender equality in labor force participation and pay could add $12 trillion to the global GDP by 2025. By easing the financial burden on women—particularly single women, who make up over 28% of the adult population in the U.S.—a Pink Discount would increase discretionary income, boost consumer spending, and stimulate growth across multiple sectors.

Personal care, wellness, travel, housing, and education would all benefit from an economy where women could spend freely without being penalized for their biology. And given that women control or influence 85% of consumer spending, according to Forbes, the macroeconomic ripple effect would be substantial.

By easing the financial burden on women—particularly single women, who make up over 28% of the adult population in the U.S.—a Pink Discount would increase discretionary income, boost consumer spending, and stimulate growth across multiple sectors.

Moreover, it would recognize the unique economic role of single women in an era of rising independence. These women are not lonely spinsters in waiting. They are entrepreneurs, caregivers, voters, homeowners, and wealth builders. They are raising children, leading companies, and financing the futures of others—often without the safety net of a dual-income household.

In a time of great financial unrest—marked by inflation, rising housing costs, and a crumbling healthcare system—women are forced to make sacrifices that men are rarely asked to consider. A Pink Discount wouldn't just improve quality of life; it would restore a measure of financial dignity.

Of course, the immediate rebuttal is that this kind of gender-based economic model is impractical, if not impossible. But so was the Equal Credit Opportunity Act until 1974, when it became illegal to deny a woman a credit card without her husband's signature. So was the idea of women attending Ivy League schools, or voting, or being CEOs. Cultural appetite for equity has always lagged behind its necessity.

These women are not lonely spinsters in waiting. They are entrepreneurs, caregivers, voters, homeowners, and wealth builders.

The real question is: Do we have the imagination—and the will—to do more than just talk about equity?

Until then, single women will continue to find workarounds. They’ll continue to share expenses, negotiate salaries with surgical precision, start side businesses, crowdfund healthcare, and support each other in group chats that double as financial strategy sessions. But they shouldn't have to Ms. MacGyver their way through modern life just to stay afloat.

So ask yourself: If we accept the Pink Tax, why not flip the ledger?
What would it mean—for society, for the economy, for our shared future—if every dollar spent was finally worth the same?

Not in theory, but in real life. Where it counts.