I did not reply that I could pick ‘any year at all’. I said, ‘I could have started with 1974 or 1976 or any of a number of years. The point is the long-term change. I could even have started with the 1960s and the argument on relative earnings would hold.’ (4/3) ‘Any of a number of years’ does not mean ‘any year at all’.

You say, ‘One of your main arguments is that teachers have become less skilled since [whatever cherry picked date you are using]’. I have not cherry picked any dates. I have explained why I started from 1975 several times. That choice did not involve cherry picking. I have explained why I used Andrew Leighs’s study starting from 1983. That did not involve any cherry picking. People doing research choose their own periods to look at. Therefore studies of related matters may cover different periods of time.

You say, ‘You just used all 4 posts and 1400 words to say "waaa, you're mean and I hate you! Mommy!!"’ I did not. I don’t actually hate you. I don’t like you and am glad that I don’t have to deal with people like you in real life, but that is a different thing from hate. The purpose of the four posts was clear. Anyone can read them. Your reply is equivalent to a burglar complaining that the person he had robbed was pointing out he had been robbed. It is like the school bully complaining that he has been told off for bullying.

You say, ‘Instead of quoting everything I've said that you didn't like under a heading, just write "I don't like what you said", since it will be as effective as what you just did. Of you know, you could explain why something was a lie/mean/whatever, and I'd respond. Or better yet, you could man up, stop crying to mother …’

I have explained why what you say is untrue. Whether or not it is a lie is something only you really know. For it to be a lie you have to know that it was untrue when you said it and have gone ahead and said it any way. It is possible that you actually believe what you say is true. There are many myths that people just believe (e.g., that John Howard changed the definition of unemployment; they are not lying when they pass it one, but they are still wrong).

‘[S]top crying to mother’ is the bully’s defence. I saw it quite often amongst children. You have made statements that are simply untrue. Yet you seem to expect that they must remain unchallenged and then you object, with the usual abusive language, when they are challenged. But I have said, more than once, that my first priority is “to correct the untrue things you have said in response to me” (8.03:14am, 2/3). If you want your questions answered, it is in your hands.

“my argument has not been that ‘there actually has been a decrease in salary’”
I’ll admit it, when I read that I wondered why I bothered replying to you at all. So this whole time you’ve rambled, dodged, recited misleading and inaccurate calculation after calculation, rambled some more, and you don’t even think there has been a decrease in salary. You would have saved everyone a lot of time if you had just said this 100 posts earlier.

Ok, so there hasn’t been a decrease in teacher wages. So remind me why we should be paying them more? Or is that another position you “don’t really believe”? So you can’t even argue a salary decrease, the first and most basic of the 6 points you need to establish to even have a prima facie argument. Unbelievable.

You do persist in your “MAWOTE” argument, that there has been a “relative drop” and that this somehow means something. What you don’t do is address any of the criticisms made of this methodology that render it valueless as a benchmark. I can only assume you’ve once again failed to comprehend what has been written, so I’ll explain it slowly, like I would to a child.
a) Joe makes $40,000 a year. This is exactly the average male earnings for that year.
b) Over the next 5 years there is no inflation (for the purposes of this argument, I don’t want to confuse you). So in 5 years, the real value of Joe’s $40,000 is the same.
c) In an entirely unrelated business sector, let’s call it mining, the industry becomes far more profitable during this 5 year period. They start paying their workers more money for overtime, to live permanently in the community, to get extra training, etc. The extra money going to this sector shifts the average wage from $40,000 a year to $45,000.
Now, explain why Joe should get a $5000 raise because of something that happened in an unrelated industry. There is no reason, what happened in the mining industry doesn’t provide any reason for his own wage to increase.

And that’s without factoring in all the changes in the workplace, such as the fact that the workplace has radically changed (women are now a larger part of the workplace for example, the economy has opened up, the profession of teaching is not as valuable and is losing market share to the private sector, etc). This has been repeated over and over, and you keep referencing MAWOTE like it matters. You say other things support the “relative salary drop” (like what?) without understanding that a relative salary drop isn’t an ACTUAL drop, and there is no reason you should pay people more because of a relative drop, not when the real value of the money they’re getting is just as good. Bob next door got an extra $150 a year, so I should get an extra $150 a year even though we work completely different jobs and that makes NO SENSE. I keep repeating this in the hope that you’ll actually address it at some point, but I seem to be typing in vain. That’s what MAWOTE measures… that’s why it has no value, because what Joe next door is earning shouldn’t dictate what I earn, only the value of the services and payment I get in real terms should dictate that. So if you’ve conceded there was no actual drop, you’ve conceded the whole argument. Jesus, I can’t believe it took this long to prise that information out of you. Doubtless I can expect a vague, rambling reply to something irrelevant. Goody.

Riddler,

You say ‘I'm sorry you can't read, but my meaning was plain, both in the post you cite, and in the other posts you (claim) to have read. I'm at a loss as to how you could read the passage as you claim to, and more at a loss as to how you could believe I held that position when I had earlier made remarks like “because the choice of where to send students is made by the Dept of Education” on Feb 21’ (8.19:41am, 7/3)

I read the passage as you wrote it: “The AEU opposes league tables, opposes myschools, etc. They clearly oppose more information for the public, and want to restrict it as much as possible, which is why they don’t even allow parents to choose where their kids go. “The department does…” (4.54:04pm, 26/2); i.e., the AEU does not allow parents to choose schools; the department does the choosing for them; in other words, the AEU is powerful enough to prevent parents choosing schools and the department is powerful enough to tell parents which schools their children must go to.

Yet, when we examine the details in six of the eight jurisdictions, we see that the department does not actually choose where parents must send their children. It guarantees a place in a local school and allows parents to choose any school with room or subject to other conditions. Now, those conditions may or may not be reasonable, but it is simply untrue to say that the department chooses the school to which parents must send their children.

You say that I ‘hint’ that I ‘oppose school autonomy’. To save you the bother of making up yet another set of beliefs or statements from me, I will say that it all depends on the definition and extent of autonomy. There is a difference between curriculum autonomy, which Victorian schools gained in the late 1960s and lost in the 1990s, and management/budgetary autonomy, which principals gained in the 1990s. There is also a difference between school autonomy, the term you use, and principal autonomy, which is what many people mean when they say ‘school autonomy’. I am even prepared to discuss the subject with you when I have completed dealing with priority one and probably priority two as the topic may fit under priority three.

Your statements about how zoning works in NSW may even be right (8.30:41am, 7/3), but they do not show that the department chooses which schools parents send their children too. You were wrong in your claim about the department choosing the schools and attempt to cover up for getting basic facts wrong by presenting an entirely different argument about what the choice parents do have actually amounts to. It seems that whenever you get a basic fact wrong, you just pretend you haven’t and talk about some other point.