• forrgott@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 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
        6
        ·
        20 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
          16 hours 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
            ·
            7 hours 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.