Wow. That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve read. You have contributed nothing to the discussion, and made us all measurably stupider in the process. Well done.
Great work. With strong arguments like that you’re sure to discredit fascism and advance feminism! You are as asset to the conservative PsyOps machine, comrade!
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.
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.
Wow. That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve read. You have contributed nothing to the discussion, and made us all measurably stupider in the process. Well done.
Great work. With strong arguments like that you’re sure to discredit fascism and advance feminism! You are as asset to the conservative PsyOps machine, comrade!
“the arrival of children has a large and persistent impact on the gender earnings gap, reducing female earnings by 55 per cent, on average, in the 5 years following parenthood. We further show, using personal income tax data collected by the Australian Tax Office (ATO), that this gap improves only slightly but remains high in the 10 years following the arrival of children.”
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/05/reduce-motherhood-penalty-gender-pay-gap/
https://theconversation.com/the-motherhood-pay-gap-why-womens-earnings-decline-after-having-children-220207
Your entire argument is specious. Nobody but you made any reference to lifetime earnings. Also, you have admitted, quite directly, to being a fascist.
So blow it out your ass, idiot. Since everything coming from you is shit, anyways.
Could you help me understand where his argument is specious?
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.
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.
And all was well in the fediverse
Hopefully the deleted commenter doesn’t see this but if you do thank you!
I have come to the conclusion that their position is mental illness, because everything they’ve typed so far is non-sensical.
deleted by creator
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.
So in addition to poor reasoning skills, you also have poor literacy skills and reading comprehension… I am unsurprised.