Child support us an 18 year commitment. Your calculation works until the kid is about 4 years old. Then Arian's income is likely nothing outside of capital gains. The bankruptcy of NFL players is over 50%.
<br> At the end of the day all these points are irrelevant. Because they both chose to not use any form of birth control. The cost saving, or earning measure can go both ways as well. I think this topic has gone on a tangent unrelated to what the OP was actually trying to discuss.
I don't know why you keep hiding behind some separate thread to deflect responses to a conversation you initiated, and to the dated concepts and phrases you used to further your argument.
Because you are the one with dated concepts such as women lose time for child rearing and are more qualified to raise children because of gender roles? You aren't really getting it so I am trying to explain my view.
I didn't say women were more qualified because of gender roles. I said men relied on females' prescribed roles as mothers when selecting them as spouses, and that was a greater and more relevant factor in shaping marriages and family law than some weird and narrow "gold digger" myth.
What does that have to do with the bias of courts in awarding custody? What does it have to do with the universally accepted fact athletes jump offs will get custody and child support? This is the discussion I was attempting to start.
You didn't say anything about athletes in the hypothetical statement of your original post; so you should probably be prepared to field comments that separately address your stated broader ideas about marriage, reproduction and family law concepts: to which your clumsy "gold digger" complaints have marginal relevance.
