3% to cover the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017.
3% to cover the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 and
1.5% to cover 1 July 2018 to 31 Dec 2018. (it is just half a year therefore half the rise)
Fedsec, I am annualising the pay rises. The first 18 months is a big fat zero.
Year 1: 0%
Year 2: 0% for the first 6 months + 3% for the last 6 months = 1.5%
p.a. for Year 2.
Year 3: 3% for the first 6 months = 1.5% p.a. Another 3% for the last 6 months of Year 3 = 1.5%
p.a. Total for Year 3 = 3%
p.a.
Year 4: 3% for the first 6 months = 1.5%
p.a. Another 1.5% for 6 months = 0.75%
p.a. Total for Year 4 = 2.25%
p.a. for Year 4.
Why is the second half of Year 4 treated differently to the second half of Year 2?
I make the assumption that we get nothing post 1 Jan 2019 because the EA doesn't stretch that far. Call me stoopid but I don't count the cash from the harvest till it's at market. 1 Jan 2019 is a long way away. Dice it another way: my calculator says
annualised, 1.5% for the first 6 months of FY2019 and then 0% for the second 6 months of FY2019 is 0.75%
per annum for FY2019.
But then who cares? I'm just being pedantic. It won't change my vote: I want peace and stability for 4 years, not give up a whole lot, and the boyz back from the CTC.
I'm not that intelligent but 1.5% over 6 months is the same as 1.5% over 12 months. Twice the period but the same increase.
WTF? Your logic being? Two sentences expressing diametrically opposed views? Look, you can't count what you don't have. 1.5% in the first 6 months of FY2019 + 0% in the second 6 months of FY2019 = 0.75% over 12 months. Would you trade me a whole orange now if I gave you half an orange now, plus the promise of another half an orange in 6 months? Seriously, what is so hard to understand about that? With customers with logic like that, why am I not in banking?
For the other pedants out there, I am not counting compounding. That would clearly blow some peoples minds.