• forrgott@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    16 days 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
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days 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
        16 days ago

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

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 days ago

          Hey, it’s been 12 hours and this might be worth a revisit with a fresh perspective. The parent commenter was plenty pleasant, I would say.