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:
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.
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.
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