I noticed I attributed Petal's remarks to Vanna. A typo obviously. Petal, if you believe the article is relevant, why not explain why it is relevant, instead of acting as though it speaks for itself. I've explained multiple times what position your opponents on this forum are taking, and you keep attributing positions to us that we don't hold. Do I care what the (claimed) purpose of the SES was? No. Maybe if you'd read my first post, or any of the subsequent ones, you wouldn't look so foolish.

Riddler,

Longweekend58 is not “torching [me] with a vengeance on the stats”. He has the concepts of an index and a percentage increase mixed up.

I will give the CPI increases year by year again with the Consumer Price Index itself for each year with the beginning of 1974 as the base and with the beginning of 1975 as the base. The CPI increased by 16.3 per cent during 1974. Thus, the Consumer Price Index rose from 100 to 116.3 over 1974. The CPI increased by 14.0 per cent in 1975. Thus the CPI rose from 116.3 to 132.6 (rounded off to one decimal place). If 1975 is the base at 100, then the CPI rose to 114 over 1975. The rest follow:
1976 - 10.8 per cent increase (CPI 146.9 with 1974 as the base year, 126.3 with 1975 as the base year), 1977 - 9.3 (CPI 160.6/138.0), 1978 - 7.7 (CPI 173.0/148.6), 1979 - 10.0 (CPI 190.3/163.5), 1980 - 9.3 (CPI 208.0/178.7), 1981 - 11.3 (CPI 231.5/198.9), 1982 -11.0 (CPI 257.0/220.8), 1983- 8.6 (CPI 279.1/239.8), 1984 - 2.6 (CPI 286.4/246.0), 1985 - 8.2 (CPI 309.9/266.2), 1986 - 9.8 (CPI 340.3/292.3), 1987 - 7.1 (CPI 364.5/313.1), 1988 - 7.7 (CPI 392.6/337.2), 1989 -7.8 (CPI 423.2/363.5), 1990 - 6.9 (CPI 452.4/388.6), 1991 - 1.5 (CPI 459.2/394.4), 1992 - 0.3 (CPI 460.6/395.6), 1993 - 1.9 (CPI 469.4/403.1), 1994 - 2.5 (CPI 481.1/413.2/), 1995 - 5.1 (CPI 505.6/434.3), 1996 -1.5 (CPI 513.2/440.8), 1997 - -0.2 (CPI 512.2/439.9), 1998 - 1.6 (CPI 520.4/446.9), 1999 - 1.8 (CPI 529.8/454.9), 2000 - 5.8 (CPI 560.5/481.3), 2001 - 3.1 (CPI 577.9/496.2), 2002 - 3.0 (CPI 595.2/511.1), 2003 - 2.4 (CPI 609.5/523.4), 2004 - 2.3 (CPI 623.5/535.4), 2005 - 2.8 (CPI 641.0/550.4), 2006 - 3.3 (CPI 662.2/568.6), 2007 - 3.0 (CPI 682.1/585.5), 2008 - 3.7 (CPI 707.3/607.4), 2009 - 2.1 (CPI 722.2/620.2), 2010 -2.9 (CPI 743.1/638.2).

A CPI of 743.1 means an increase of 643.1 per cent. Leaving out the 1974 increase of 16.3 per cent means that there has been an increase in the CPI of 538.2 per cent since the beginning of 1975.

I earlier used a shortcut to calculate the percentage increase in the CPI since 1975 as approximately 551 per cent, not 538.2 per cent. I’m not sure how I did this, but the new calculation has been derived year by year, so I expect it is accurate. A recalculation of teacher salaries on the basis of the 538.2 per cent increase follows. However, changes to superannuation need to be explained first.

The Revised Superannuation Scheme was closed in 1988. It was a defined benefit scheme in which the government as employer made no contribution until retirement, when teachers and principals received a CPI-indexed pension. Actuarially, the government ‘contribution’ was calculated to be about 21 percent of salary. The New Scheme provided a lump sum only with a lower government ‘contribution’. After 1992, the New Scheme was also closed and all new employees were forced into the federally mandated scheme, which now has an employer contribution of 9 per cent. Thus, a teacher in the Revised Scheme earning $81,806 is really getting an additional deferred benefit of $17,179, but one in the mandated minimum scheme is getting an additional deferred benefit of only $7,362. That makes a huge difference over a 30-year period. The reason for this cut to the long-term living standards of teachers was the claim that the state could not afford to be so generous! However, it apparently could continue to be so generous to principals, who were placed on salary packages including the full 21 per cent for superannuation whether or not they were in the Revised Scheme.

A beginning teacher was paid $8,150 ($52,013 in today’s dollars) in 1975. A beginning teacher is paid $55,459 today. That is a real increase of $3446 (6.6 per cent). However, the beginning teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $62,936 in 1975. A beginning teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $60,450 today. That is a real decline of $2,486, (4.0 per cent).

A sub-division 14 teacher (the top unpromoted sub-division, automatically reached after seven years) was paid $11,400 ($72,755 in today’s dollars) in 1975. A teacher with seven years’ experience is paid $69,946 today. That is $2,809 (3.9 per cent) less today than 36 years ago. However, a teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $87,792 in 1975. A teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $76,241 today. That is $11,551 (13.2 per cent) less.

The top unpromoted teacher salary is now $81,806 (reached after ten years and performance reviews), giving a real increase of $9,051 or 12.4 per cent. However, a teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $87,792 in 1975. A teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $89,169 today. That is $1,377 (1.6 per cent) more.

A senior teacher was paid $13,025 ($83,126 in today’s dollars) in 1975. Today’s equivalent, a leading teacher, starts on $84,536. That is $1,410 (1.7 per cent) more. However, the senior teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $100,582 in 1975. A leading teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $92,144 in the first year today. That is a real decline of $8,438 (8.4 per cent).

A leading teacher, subject to successful performance reviews, can reach $89,423 today. That is an increase of $6,297 (7.6 per cent). However, the senior teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $100,582 in 1975. A leading teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $97,471 on the top level today. That is a real decline of $3,111 (3.1 per cent).

The top principal salary was $17,300 in 1975 ($110,409 in today’s dollars). However, we cannot make a direct comparison with principals’ salaries now.

Firstly, they are now paid on the size of the school budget, not enrolment. Thus, in 1975, the top salary was paid to principals with over 800 students in their schools. Now the top salary is paid to principals with a budget of $8,197,869.

Secondly, there were two pay levels in 1975, while now there are 24, with movement up the range related to performance assessment. Thus, no one receives the top salary today unless successful at several reviews and in a large-budget school.

Thirdly, they are now on salary packages, not salaries. Superannuation was in addition to the 1975 salary, but is included in the current salary package.

The principal’s 1975 salary of $110,409 was equivalent to a salary package of $133,595. The current top principal’s salary package ranges from $143,209 to $161,470. For a principal in the Revised Scheme, the actual salary range is approximately $118,354 to $133,446. For a principal not in the Revised Scheme, the actual salary is higher as compensation.

Thus, in real terms, a principal, at the start of the top salary range is $7,945 (7.2 per cent) better off today in real salary terms than a principal on the top salary in 1975. Such a principal is $9,614 better off in real terms on the salary package measurement.

A principal on the top of the top salary range is $23,037 (20.9 per cent) better off today in real salary terms than a principal on the top salary in 1975. Such a principal is $27,875 better off in real terms on the salary package measurement.

Apart from principals who reach the top salary level, teachers have, at best, had small increases in the purchasing power of their salaries over the last 36 years. Some have had actual declines in purchasing power of their salaries over that period, while most levels looked at have had declines in the purchasing power of their salary packages over that period.

You have just used all four of your posts for the day to reply, but not one of those posts contains a reply to any of the points I raised, instead they focus on the statistical claims that were debunked by longweekend days ago. If you're not going to bother to reply to any of my posts, just say so, instead of addressing me, and then making posts that have no bearing on any of the points I've been making, and do not address them at all.

You've been told why your numbers were wrong, you even partly concede this now, but long before this I said I was willing to assume this for the sake of argument (temporarily anyway), and asked you to respond to a number of points I'd been making from my first post onwards, which questioned the validity of your underlying arguments. You still don't respond to any of these points, after what must be the 20th challenge to do so. Why should anyone take you seriously?