I get a haircut about once a year when it gets to donation length, usually as a treat for myself on my birthday. It costs $75 at my fav salon with tip for just the cut, no extra styling or dye or anything. Female tax is pretty real. I don't mind the expense though, since I like the hairdresser and the salon is in one of my favorite neighborhoods. I usually make a whole day of it and enjoy the afternoon walking around with a new hairdo. My husband's haircut cost is $0, I've been cutting his hair for years.
Not knocking you at all; you obviously are wise about doing it (I mean you only do it once a year, lol) and have evaluated the benefit for you, but why on earth would a hair cut with no extra styling or dye cost $75? I guess I'm just used to man priced hair cuts, but it just seems extreme.
Lol, try $130 with tax and tip for my hair, which when it was short, needed to be cut every 4 weeks.
That would be why I stopped wearing my hair short.
DH goes to the same salon, has the same texture hair, and the same length, and it costs him less than half. It drives me insane, and technically, I believe it's against the law.
A lot of high end salons here are starting to charge based on hair length, which I think is a smart compromise that allows them to legally justify their pink tax. This especially makes sense since it's time in the chair that matters, and drying and styling is the big time suck for women's hair if it's long.
However, there's an additional point to note. Here, a barber doesn't need any kind of license, whereas a stylist does fairly intensive education and must be licensed, so that produces a significant difference in cost as well.
An RMT I know used to be a hairstylist and said the two programs were similar in intensity and difficulty, and she charges about the same per hour as she did as a stylist.
That said, I just shaved all of my hair off because I truly despise having to get haircuts, so my cost is now $0