8 ms·

Assumptions? it is just simple math, if your not working your not earning, so you have a choice, make less money and look after your kids or pay someone else to

Assumptions? it is just simple math, if your not working your not earning, so you have a choice, make less money and look after your kids or pay someone else too.

bubuga 10y ago
> Assumptions? it is just simple math No, it's a baseless assumption. You're somehow assuming that the only reason someone may even argue that you dont have to "neglect" your children and have a career is "only because they have money to out source their parental duties". That's a blatant baseless assumption. You may feel that, considering your career and the way you've been managing it, the only reason why someone may succeed in not neglecting their kids is if they pay someone else to do their job, but that obviously doesn't mean that your baseless assumption has any truth to it. Simple math isn't worth anything if you get the facts all wrong.
- ps4fanboy 10y ago
  It is really simple, can you explain to me how you can have a career, not outsource your parental duties and maintain the same income level as someone who outsourced (or had a spouse) looking after their children. You cannot do it, and will not.
  - bubuga 10y ago
    I see you magically added the "maintain the same income level" gem to try to move your goalpost. But even considering your goalpost-moving argument, why do you assume that preserving a high income level is a priority over not neglecting your children? If you and people like you constantly prioritize maximizing your personal income level over not neglecting your own children, it is rather obvious that you will end up neglecting your children to pursuit a larger paycheck. But that doesn't mean your job demands it. It's you that is demanding it. You neglect your children because you opt to pursuit a higher paycheck. But that doesn't mean anyone is forced to neglect their children just to keep a well-paying job. That's only your own personal choice, and you don't justify your personal life choices by throwing blanket accusations and baseless assumptions like you've been doing in this thread.
    - ps4fanboy 10y ago
      In order to reduce the "pay gap" you must maintain the same level of income, its what the whole debate is about pay gap, how is that moving the goal post. > why do you assume that preserving a high income level is a priority over not neglecting your children I didnt assume its a priority, it only becomes a priority if you want to have children and not make less than a man/family without children or full time/part time caring spouse. At this point I dont even understand what your arguing, I dont even have children, stop projecting.

Assumptions? it is just simple math, if your not working your not earning, so you have a choice, make less money and look after your kids or pay someone else too.

bubuga 10y ago

> Assumptions? it is just simple math No, it's a baseless assumption. You're somehow assuming that the only reason someone may even argue that you dont have to "neglect" your children and have a career is "only because they have money to out source their parental duties". That's a blatant baseless assumption. You may feel that, considering your career and the way you've been managing it, the only reason why someone may succeed in not neglecting their kids is if they pay someone else to do their job, but that obviously doesn't mean that your baseless assumption has any truth to it. Simple math isn't worth anything if you get the facts all wrong.

ps4fanboy 10y ago
It is really simple, can you explain to me how you can have a career, not outsource your parental duties and maintain the same income level as someone who outsourced (or had a spouse) looking after their children. You cannot do it, and will not.
- bubuga 10y ago
  I see you magically added the "maintain the same income level" gem to try to move your goalpost. But even considering your goalpost-moving argument, why do you assume that preserving a high income level is a priority over not neglecting your children? If you and people like you constantly prioritize maximizing your personal income level over not neglecting your own children, it is rather obvious that you will end up neglecting your children to pursuit a larger paycheck. But that doesn't mean your job demands it. It's you that is demanding it. You neglect your children because you opt to pursuit a higher paycheck. But that doesn't mean anyone is forced to neglect their children just to keep a well-paying job. That's only your own personal choice, and you don't justify your personal life choices by throwing blanket accusations and baseless assumptions like you've been doing in this thread.
  - ps4fanboy 10y ago
    In order to reduce the "pay gap" you must maintain the same level of income, its what the whole debate is about pay gap, how is that moving the goal post. > why do you assume that preserving a high income level is a priority over not neglecting your children I didnt assume its a priority, it only becomes a priority if you want to have children and not make less than a man/family without children or full time/part time caring spouse. At this point I dont even understand what your arguing, I dont even have children, stop projecting.