If we reverted to PPLs teaching PPLs then the CPL as a standalone licence would die - no point
Not sure what you mean by "no point"? No point in allowing PPL's to instruct? or no point in having a CPL as a stand alone licence?
If it's the former, then you have swept away any arguments for or against without so much as a "but" or "if"
If it's the latter then nothing is changed. The CPL as a stand alone licence is very limited anyway but hasn't died yet. Unless you add something like a FI/R, or IR a stand alone CPL simply allows you to earn money by flying, as you know. It doesn't get you a job automatically ... that bit is up to you and the direction you wish to go. An FI/R should be added if that is what you want to do, not just as a means to an end. If it is, then you can't really expect to be payed hansomely as you're likely to leave as soon as an airline job becomes available. IMHO, it should only be added if you genuinely want to teach, or if instructing is genuinely relavent to what you want to go on to later. This may cut the number of CPL's getting an FI/R, but I doubt it as you still need those hours under your belt to be attractive to airlines ... that is why most (not all I know) CPL's become instructors in the first place. Career instructors should get payed well, but that is why I say that advanced training is where the wages should be aimed. It's a commercial world, and just like other industries where experience is a requirement, those without, tend to be payed poorly until that experience is gained. If (and I doubt it will) this ultimately reduces instructor numbers, then the argument for PPL instructors is further backed up.
So saying "no point" has no point in itself does it?
SS