Vanna

You said "In fact, the teacher will most likely ask for a payrise for doing the same thing year after year, with no improvements shown or increases in productivity."

Haven't you got teachers mixed up with politicians?

Chris, you intentionally ignore the stuff you can't respond to, and your last post is a good example. I asked you some very simple questions. For example, after you claimed certain "facts" to be true, I asked you to cite evidence for your claims. You haven't done so. I don't think that was an unreasonable request, given I pointed out that the entry scores demonstrate your fact is wrong, unhelpful, or both. No reply from you. I asked if you support a voucher model. No reply from you. I asked if you support firing incompetent teachers, and changing working conditions so pay is not based on tenure, but on merit (and so we can get flexible hours for teachers). No response from you. I pointed out the devastating concession you had made, that teachers from catholic schools are paid no higher, yet are stealing your students, despite the obvious advantages the public system enjoys (like being free). No response from you. I asked why the current wage isn't high enough, and we've essentially had no response from you beyond your use of made up formulas for what the wage was in the 70's. Just tell us the reason the current salary is not a fair reflection of market value, and without reference to the 70's if you don't mind, since we've explained to you why it's not relevant (or if you insist on bringing up the 70's, tell us why the wages you erroneously claim were paid in the 70's in REAL terms were the right numbers, and not an overpayment).

The only reply you've given to anything I've said is that in Victoria they have selection, assumedly conceding that is a good thing. I actually asked for more information on this, queried the extent to which they allow it, as I've never heard anything about it, and you refused to answer, just told me to find it myself. You've been anything but responsive to arguments people have made here.

Just for anyone who Chris has genuinely confused btw, here is a link to the RBA inflation calculator:
http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html
$11,400 is the amount he lists as a payment for a sub-division 4 teacher today, assuming his figures are even correct, which is dubious on his past record, is worth $68,678 in 2010 money, yet Chris erroneously claims it is worth $72,755 in today's money. He can't even add correctly. I could go into the individual payments, but since Chris never answered longweekend's point about super in the 70's, I'm not going to bother, as the time period he's chosen is the height of unbudgeted government extravagance, right before Whitlam was thrown out, and cuts made to everything to right the books. Uni education was free then too, but it would be dishonest of me to selectively take 1975 university costs (ie, nothing), and compare them to current fees, to claim fee rises have been unacceptable. The actual salary, not including the ridiculous super boost that got thrown on top, is actually higher than inflation!

While I'm asking questions Chris, I'll add repeat 2 more you've never responded to:
1) Have classics and grammar classes increased or decreased since 1975? Please answer the actual question, not your own question (about how at your school they taught some grammar and had a classics class)
2) Why have parents been flocking out of the public system? Do they like paying fees instead of getting a free product? If it's the teacher quality in public schools that's falling, why has the catholic system been able to draw students away with teacher salaries that you concede are no higher than your own?

Riddler,

You say, “We don't care about your grievances with your old school”. Given that I have not mentioned any “grievances with my old school” in any of my posts, perhaps you might like to tell us that you don’t care about my views on urban planning or vegetables as well.

You say, “we don't care about your political leanings”. As I have explained already, I mentioned my past DLP candidature as evidence that longweekend’s invention that I was ideologically opposed to private schools was false. Rather than simply deny what he made up, I found publicly available evidence that he was wrong. You don’t have to “care” about it at all. You ought, however, to recognise it for what it is – relevant evidence in answer to a false claim made about me. Surely, even you do not believe that is okay for longweekend to invent stuff but impermissible for me to supply evidence to defend myself.

You say, “we certainly don't care for your grammar and writing style.” Tough! I don’t care for your nasty language, your tone, your gratuitous insults of teachers or your claiming I have said things I have not said, but I have to put up with them.

You say, “take yourself off”. I have already told you that I won’t be taking instructions from you.

None of my statistical claims has been “debunked” (3.44:55pm, 19/2) by longweekend or anyone else.

Longweekend,

You say the only reason you have not “returned to debunk [my] rather bad mathematoics/statistics is that it would take too long” and that you doubt my “ability understand it” (4:19:41 PM, 19/2). What a cop-out! Lest Riddler chime in with something else he says “we don’t care about”, I’ll leave aside the question of my mathematical ability. If my figures of the increase in the CPI were wrong for any year, it would be really simple for you to say which year and what the correct figure is. If my figures for the CPI itself have been wrongly calculated at any year, it would be really simple for you to say which year was wrong and what the correct figure was.

I know that teachers were not the only ones in the unfunded public sector schemes in the 1970s. That does not change the fact of the case; i.e., the teachers’ renumeration packages (salary plus employer superannuation “contribution”) were higher in real terms in the 1970s than they are now.

I do know why we have a Future Fund.