• forrgott@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    His primary argument was all about lifetime earning potential. That is not what salary refers to. So, his argument doesn’t actually apply to the allegation. Therefore, it is specious.

    • namarupa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I can’t see where his argument was about lifetime earning potential. Seems to be just simply women with children make less money, which seems reasonable.

      I also don’t see anywhere he even implied that salary and lifetime earning potential were the same thing. And salary would be reflected in lifetime earning potential.

      What is your position? I’m not even certain what the point of your disagreement is.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        I have come to the conclusion that their position is mental illness, because everything they’ve typed so far is non-sensical.

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I don’t see the point of your rambling.

        Salary does not equal lifetime earning.

        It’s a blatant bait and switch.

        However, I don’t give a fuck what you, or he, thinks…