Sure. But I'm not saying that they haven't been affected.
So we all agree that the net effect of the last several years is a loss of total teaching jobs...
Actually, I don't know that. The data I've seen doesn't explicitly state that there are fewer total K-12 teachers employed in the US today than there were in Jan 2009.
... as well as public-sector jobs in general, right?
Not "as well as", the link in the OP simply says "public-sector jobs". I don't see a break down of which areas of the public sector have X jobs compared to Y jobs back when. Do you? So how about we not make assumptions about the data?
Great. Nobody every really questioned this, so I'm not sure exactly why this is a point of contention.
The point of contention is when someone reads something that simply says "There are X number fewer public sector jobs today than in 2009", and then states that the jobs that were lost were teachers, firefighters, police, and construction workers (although that last one feels kinda tossed in as well). I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask for actual data regarding the total number of teachers, firefighters, and police employed today versus back then. Since that would be relevant in terms of determining whether the shrinking of the public sector (which I happen to agree with) is actually most affecting teachers and firefighters and cops, or whether it's most affecting mid level bureaucrats, superfluous civil servants, or represent cuts in wasteful projects which perhaps should not have existed in the first place.
Has the actual number of employed teachers decreased over the last 4-5 years? Given the context of the original post, this would seem relevant, right?
But you just... right above this... and now you...
I said that they were "affected". But so has the private sector jobs. I know lots of people who lost their jobs and had to get another one, or who weren't able to transfer to a better paying position, or had their wages frozen, reduced bonuses, etc. The OP is not saying that no one in the private sector was "affected". It's saying that 4.2 million jobs were lost, but then 4.2 million new jobs were created and concludes that this means that the private sector has recovered.
So... If we focus just on say teachers, we could measure whether they are still being adversely affected using the same methodology, right? So let's just count the total number of teaching jobs back then and compare it to right now and see if they are higher, lower, or the same. Then we're measuring both groups by the same yardstick. If we fail to do this, then we're playing a bait and switch game and are being dishonest.
Do you honestly know what the total number of employed teachers in the US is right now compared to 3.5 years ago? If you don't, then you can't actually say that we've lost teacher jobs, can you? It certainly may be true, but absent numbers, forgive me for not just accepting all the people who say this, but who are also just assuming without looking at the numbers either. Certainly, it's ridiculous to measure one set by one method, and another by a different one, and then think we're making some kind of rational point.
Edited, May 7th 2012 3:01pm by gbaji