First, as an economist, I would argue that seniors should get discounts for reasons other than just “this is traditionally how it’s been done.” Today’s seniors are the wealthiest in the history of the world. Do they still deserve them? Auto workers used to get great pension packages, but now they don’t. Things change. The average 70-year old has a higher standard of living than the average 21-year old; shouldn’t we give 21-year olds discounts instead? (Rhetorical question, of course)

I think you can definitely make a case that cutting a woman’s hair is often more time-consuming than cutting a man’s. When my girlfriend goes to the salon, she’s there for 3 hours. I’m there for 15 minutes. Sure, she’s getting highlights too, but that doesn’t take 2.75 hours. And of course, there are some women who take more time than others — just as there are some men with simple hair and others with more complicated hair. But if salon owners had to charge by the minute, it might be too cumbersome a policy to administer, and people wouldn’t want the chit-chat with their hairdresser. You could argue it would decrease the overall quality of the experience, so it’s just easier to put people in groups based on how long it takes on average to cut their hair, and the easiest such division is men/women.

But even if I stipulate to your assertion that it’s not all based on women taking more time or effort, and they simply charge women more because they can, my response is this: morally it’s wrong, but economically it’s justifiable. You charge people what they’ll pay. If those differences happen to be based on gender, then so be it. If salons had to charge the same price, they’d very likely charge a higher price to men (because there’s much more money made on women than men) and a lot of men would not get their hair cut professionally, or not as often. Do you really want unkempt men roaming the streets? (Another rhetorical question; I like asking them.)

In my Managerial Economics class, I point out that while it might be illegal to charge different prices to different people for the same good or service, based on gender, it can still be done. You can offer your customers two different packages, one that men tend to buy and one that women tend to buy. And you can paint one package pink and the other blue. And even though anyone can buy either package, essentially you’ll have women buying the pink package and men buying the blue one. And you can charge a higher price for the pink one than the blue one (and as a business, probably should if you have reason to believe women will pay more than men). Whether that’s morally wrong depends on your morals, and those vary across people.

The whole purpose of this post was to draw attention to the inherent conflict between morality and economics. Your questions highlights that conflict nicely.

(Benjamin — yeah, I got a boilerplate response of “thank you for your interest.” I’m going to try again soon. – Dave)

But what about price discrimination in hair salons and dry cleaners, involving lower prices offered to men vs. women? In many hair salons, a wash, cut, and blow-dry for a man costs half or close to half what it costs for a woman, even if the labor involved is the same or similar. If you ask hairdressers why they do this, they hem and haw — “Oh, women’s hair is so much harder to cut” — but when you show that this is not the case, they will admit that they charge women more because they think women will pay more (because they supposedly care more about their hair) and that men will not.

What is your response to this issue?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDW27G9gnPQ

You’re going to have a hard time convincing the 9.9% of people that are unemployed that some illegal immigrants are only doing the work that Americans don’t want to do. They’re doing the work Americans don’t want to do “at the low wage that is paid to illegals.” I have no problem with a low-skilled labor force entering this country — but it has to be done legally.

And the difference between the way we treat borders is probably because the numbers of people entering through them is vastly different. Canada’s economy is doing pretty well, so people from there don’t feel the need to violate our sovereignty by coming into our country. With limited resources, you focus your efforts accordingly.

And that’s the end of this debate here.

But do you have the right to your country? That’s not a right. The country isn’t your property, for example. You have no property rights to some artificial border. Someone crossing an artificial border to find work has violated no one’s rights. They are not criminals. They are only “criminals” because a bureaucrat in Washington calls them one.

That’s why the house analogy is silly. There’s very little similar about it. Your country is not like your house, and there’s many good reasons for that.

Why should it be legitimate for the state to regulate what nationality firms can hire? Where does this authority come from? Is it somewhere in the Constitution? And why should you have the right to live here, but not the guy born 10 miles south of some artificial border? What gives you that right, but not the other guy? There doesn’t seem to be a strong argument for individualism there.

Of course, we’re all supposed to be individualists, believe in individual rights, liberty, and small government–except for the issues that concern us, like immigration. Then we’re supposed to believe big government is there to help us, that we should turn into a police state, have national I.D.s, Big Brother, etc.

I mean, I simply don’t see the rationale behind not letting someone into your country if they haven’t violated anyone’s rights. Maybe he’ll “eat all your food.” But maybe he wont. In fact, he probably wont. Of course, the guy living next to you could just as easily “eat all your food” as the guy who was born a few miles away from this artificial border of yours. And, as it’s already been noted, the northern border is far more porous than the southern one, but no one talks about that.

Is it because Mexicans are “stealing our jobs”? What is it?

If you are going to compare borders of a country to borders on a state, I don’t know what to tell you, Benjamin. States are part of the same country. Countries are different countries. That shouldn’t be difficult to understand. It’s the difference between saying you have a right to lock your front door to keep out unwanted people, but every door inside your house shouldn’t remain locked so that your family is free to move around within your home.

It seems you believe that all citizens of the world have the same rights everywhere. It is not a basic human right to live in this country. Sorry. EVERY country has borders, the vast majority enforce them, and they give their citizens more rights than they give immigrants.

From your last paragraph, it seems we’re speaking past each other a bit. I agree with you that we should have a more rational immigration policy. But without any threat of enforcement, you can never get that. If you don’t like the way firms in an industry are behaving, because of an externality for example, the government can regulate them. Make them produce cleaner or better or more safely. But the only way that works is if you can fine companies that don’t follow the rules and police companies that operate without a business license. That’s all I’m asking for in immigration policy.

Does the fact that someone was born 10 miles south of some location means he’s going to invade our country to kill our innocent children? That’s absurd. Those who advocate further militarization of our border, border walls, and so on conveniently ignore the fact that the northern border is far more porous than the southern border. It’s not about safety. That much is clear.

The reason I put “illegal immigration” is quotes is because I find it entirely nonsensical that immigration is criminalized. I understand that it’s against the law. I don’t think that makes it justified though. Someone crossing the border to find a more decent life for their family is a criminal under federal law. But he is a criminal because some bureaucrat in Washington says he is, not because he’s violated someone’s rights for example.

So should we enforce absurd laws, or should we repeal them and find more rational ways to deal with the issue? It’s a law, but it doesn’t have to be.