Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Private sector has officially recoveredFollow

#27 May 07 2012 at 3:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Demea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.

Quote:
... 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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Quote:
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... Smiley: confused


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
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 May 07 2012 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:

For example: Are you aware that only a small percentage of teachers who receive pink slips are actually laid off? Yet, the figures for pink slips handed out are often used interchangeably with "teachers laid off". You know, like you just did with your quote from google. They also count every teacher laid off, but don't account for whether they are rehired elsewhere in the district (or find another teaching job outside that district). This creates a perception that tons and tons of teachers are losing their jobs and are stuck on unemployment, when the reality is that the number is much smaller. 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? If we counted every private sector person laid off, but didn't count for every new private sector job created, we'd have massive numbers as well, but they'd also be equally bogus.


My earlier post was designed to hopefully get someone to realize this little difference, but I guess that sailed right over some people's heads.


Indeed. Perhaps it also sailed over your head that the 58,000 figure was those laid off, as the combined totals for pink slips in only five six states was greater than the 58,000 actually let go. Smiley: nod

Edit: six states, not five. My bad.

Edited, May 7th 2012 6:32pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#29 May 07 2012 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
**
275 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'll still take Oregon over Washington.

Oregon doesn't seem to have the same amount of misgivings about starting large projects for whatever reason. Of course they'll make questionable decisions like cutting back on road repair so they can build a light-rail expansion or whatever, but still at least they finish something every now and then.



You obviously haven't driven from Corvallis to Newport in the last few years on Hwy 20 then. Maybe someday they'll get it right.
____________________________
To say that you're doing pretty well is just to say that it's the best-looking puppy in a pretty ugly litter
#30 May 07 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:

For example: Are you aware that only a small percentage of teachers who receive pink slips are actually laid off? Yet, the figures for pink slips handed out are often used interchangeably with "teachers laid off". You know, like you just did with your quote from google. They also count every teacher laid off, but don't account for whether they are rehired elsewhere in the district (or find another teaching job outside that district). This creates a perception that tons and tons of teachers are losing their jobs and are stuck on unemployment, when the reality is that the number is much smaller. 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? If we counted every private sector person laid off, but didn't count for every new private sector job created, we'd have massive numbers as well, but they'd also be equally bogus.


My earlier post was designed to hopefully get someone to realize this little difference, but I guess that sailed right over some people's heads.


Indeed. Perhaps it also sailed over your head that the 58,000 figure was those laid off, as the combined totals for pink slips in only five six states was greater than the 58,000 actually let go. Smiley: nod


Really? I'm the one pointing out the difference, so no, it didn't sail over my head. WTF?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 May 08 2012 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Political wire wrote:
Bloomberg reports that almost two-thirds of private-sector job growth in the past five decades came with Democrats in the White House.

"The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents... Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy's inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 May 08 2012 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Political wire wrote:
Bloomberg reports that almost two-thirds of private-sector job growth in the past five decades came with Democrats in the White House.

"The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents... Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy's inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans."
The numbers they based this on are obviously flawed and purposely presented to make the GOP look bad by the radical left wing media.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#33 May 08 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Political wire wrote:
Bloomberg reports that almost two-thirds of private-sector job growth in the past five decades came with Democrats in the White House.

"The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents... Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy's inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans."
The numbers they based this on are obviously flawed and purposely presented to make the GOP look bad by the radical left wing media.


I'd say creative math at the very least.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 May 08 2012 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We'd all be shocked if you didn't Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 May 08 2012 at 4:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
FalkononTitan wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I'll still take Oregon over Washington.

Oregon doesn't seem to have the same amount of misgivings about starting large projects for whatever reason. Of course they'll make questionable decisions like cutting back on road repair so they can build a light-rail expansion or whatever, but still at least they finish something every now and then.



You obviously haven't driven from Corvallis to Newport in the last few years on Hwy 20 then. Maybe someday they'll get it right.


Corvallis? Newport? Everyone knows no one in Multnomah county cares about the rest of the state. Smiley: schooled

Still will take it over N. Seattle roads though... *shiver*
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#36 May 08 2012 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:

For example: Are you aware that only a small percentage of teachers who receive pink slips are actually laid off? Yet, the figures for pink slips handed out are often used interchangeably with "teachers laid off". You know, like you just did with your quote from google. They also count every teacher laid off, but don't account for whether they are rehired elsewhere in the district (or find another teaching job outside that district). This creates a perception that tons and tons of teachers are losing their jobs and are stuck on unemployment, when the reality is that the number is much smaller. 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? If we counted every private sector person laid off, but didn't count for every new private sector job created, we'd have massive numbers as well, but they'd also be equally bogus.


My earlier post was designed to hopefully get someone to realize this little difference, but I guess that sailed right over some people's heads.


Indeed. Perhaps it also sailed over your head that the 58,000 figure was those laid off, as the combined totals for pink slips in only five six states was greater than the 58,000 actually let go. Smiley: nod


Really? I'm the one pointing out the difference, so no, it didn't sail over my head. WTF?


Not sure who, as Catwho was talking about people losing their jobs. It wouldn't be me, as I used specific numbers knowing full well that the the pinks slips from six states were higher than the 58k actually laid off; note though: most of those slips were sent out or going to be sent out in 2010; the 58k number was for 2008 and 2009, the two prior years. It's quite possible that even more were laid off since then.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#37 May 08 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Looking up "How many teachers have been laid off since 2008" in Google comes back with some quick results, for a variety of states. A New York Times article from 2010 said the number of teachers and other education workers laid off throughout the country was 58,000 in the prior two years. It also pointed out that it's not just the right's fault; much of the stimulus money that went to education went to teachers unions first and foremost, and they still laid off teachers. Other quick results showed hundreds of teachers laid off in North Carolina and California. Not sure why those came up most prominently. Another article gave clearer numbers from 2010:
Quote:
Pink slips were sent out to 22,000 teachers in California, 17,000 in Illinois, and 15,000 in New York. The jobs of 8,000 school employees in Michigan, 6,000 in New Jersey, and 5,000 in Oklahoma may also be axed.

These numbers are expected to increase in coming months. Officials in Illinois report that as many as 20,000 educators could lose their jobs in the state. In California, an additional 4,000 people may be put on notice.


Much as it's a fallacy to claim only the four groups mentioned are the ones affected, it's also just as dishonest to sidestep the issue and try to pretend these groups haven't been affected.


LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Really? I'm the one pointing out the difference, so no, it didn't sail over my head. WTF?


Not sure who, as Catwho was talking about people losing their jobs. It wouldn't be me, as I used specific numbers knowing full well that the the pinks slips from six states were higher than the 58k actually laid off; note though: most of those slips were sent out or going to be sent out in 2010; the 58k number was for 2008 and 2009, the two prior years. It's quite possible that even more were laid off since then.



And yet, you prefaced those numbers with the statement that "Another article gave clearer numbers from 2010" right in the midst of a conversation about the number of teachers *actually* laid off. So either you didn't realize that receiving a pink slip and actually being laid off are not the same thing *or* you were being deliberately misleading with your response. The numbers you choose to quote are not "clearer numbers (of teacher layoffs) for 2010" as you claimed.

Edited, May 8th 2012 3:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 May 08 2012 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Looking up "How many teachers have been laid off since 2008" in Google comes back with some quick results, for a variety of states. A New York Times article from 2010 said the number of teachers and other education workers laid off throughout the country was 58,000 in the prior two years. It also pointed out that it's not just the right's fault; much of the stimulus money that went to education went to teachers unions first and foremost, and they still laid off teachers. Other quick results showed hundreds of teachers laid off in North Carolina and California. Not sure why those came up most prominently. Another article gave clearer numbers from 2010:
Quote:
Pink slips were sent out to 22,000 teachers in California, 17,000 in Illinois, and 15,000 in New York. The jobs of 8,000 school employees in Michigan, 6,000 in New Jersey, and 5,000 in Oklahoma may also be axed.

These numbers are expected to increase in coming months. Officials in Illinois report that as many as 20,000 educators could lose their jobs in the state. In California, an additional 4,000 people may be put on notice.


Much as it's a fallacy to claim only the four groups mentioned are the ones affected, it's also just as dishonest to sidestep the issue and try to pretend these groups haven't been affected.


LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Really? I'm the one pointing out the difference, so no, it didn't sail over my head. WTF?


Not sure who, as Catwho was talking about people losing their jobs. It wouldn't be me, as I used specific numbers knowing full well that the the pinks slips from six states were higher than the 58k actually laid off; note though: most of those slips were sent out or going to be sent out in 2010; the 58k number was for 2008 and 2009, the two prior years. It's quite possible that even more were laid off since then.



And yet, you prefaced those numbers with the statement that "Another article gave clearer numbers from 2010" right in the midst of a conversation about the number of teachers *actually* laid off. So either you didn't realize that receiving a pink slip and actually being laid off are not the same thing *or* you were being deliberately misleading with your response. The numbers you choose to quote are not "clearer numbers (of teacher layoffs) for 2010" as you claimed.

Edited, May 8th 2012 3:55pm by gbaji


Smiley: dubious

Or you misunderstood and made assumptions because I dared to challenge your implication that teachers aren't losing their jobs? Yeah, I like the obvious logical answer. Smiley: grin
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#39 May 08 2012 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
Corvallis? What is this Corvallis you speak of? Everyone knows Eugene is the only college town in Oregon worth mentioning. Smiley: grin
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 100 Priest
Thelesis, 91 Mage
Necralita, 90 DK
Digits, 87 Shaman
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#40 May 08 2012 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Or you misunderstood and made assumptions because I dared to challenge your implication that teachers aren't losing their jobs?


By quoting some numbers that you now claim you knew all along didn't tell us anything about the actual number of teachers who lost their jobs? How daring of you!

Quote:
Yeah, I like the obvious logical answer. Smiley: grin


So do I. The obvious answer is that you either mistakenly thought those numbers challenged my implication or you knew that they didn't but posted them anyway in the hopes that other people might not figure it out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 May 09 2012 at 8:48 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#42 May 09 2012 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This shit is what passes for drama these days? Jesus Christ.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 May 09 2012 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
You and your liberal war on religion. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 May 09 2012 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
War, nothing. I'm praying to my Lord and Savior for some decent drama.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 May 09 2012 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,826 posts
Jophiel wrote:
War, nothing. I'm praying to my Lord and Savior for some decent drama.


You want drama? Switch sides for a week and argue the conservative side of every discussion. That would cause some drama.

I'd say we could have Gbaji argue the liberal side, but he's already hard enough to understand when he's arguing for things he actually believes. My head is threatening to explode just thinking about him trying to argue the liberal side of anything.

Edited, May 9th 2012 10:55am by Bigdaddyjug
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#46 May 09 2012 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I'd say we could have Gbaji argue the liberal side,
That'd be a mess. We should get someone that can actually argue their own side before asking them to argue an opposing one.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 May 09 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I'd say we could have Gbaji argue the liberal side,
That'd be a mess. We should get someone that can actually argue their own side before asking them to argue an opposing one.


Yeah, I know. Read the rest of my post.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#48 May 09 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
No.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 May 09 2012 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Corvallis? What is this Corvallis you speak of? Everyone knows Eugene is the only college town in Oregon worth mentioning. Smiley: grin


College... Smiley: oyvey

The important thing about Eugene is that it's a really long drive from anywhere.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#50 May 09 2012 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
You want drama? Switch sides for a week and argue the conservative side of every discussion. That would cause some drama.

Smash and I were going to do this once on a lark. Then we got lazy and didn't.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 May 09 2012 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Corvallis? What is this Corvallis you speak of? Everyone knows Eugene is the only college town in Oregon worth mentioning. Smiley: grin


College... Smiley: oyvey

The important thing about Eugene is that it's a really long drive from anywhere.


It's not too far from the Bandon Dunes golf complex, which is the only thing in Oregon that matters to me.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 55 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (55)