[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
All, With all the MATH wizards coming out of the closet, Do we have any calculations required to further the next satellite project? This thread seemed doomed from the start. We all gave the life membership at the time we thought AMSAT needed the extra monetary boost. Now if we can find those Rocket scientists and support the math required for them. . .(Good Luck Tony) Caution, rough roads ahead. 73, Dee, NB2F Life Member NJ & NA AMSAT coordinator ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
> In my view at least one of the BOD > should have risen to the defense of > the concept of life membership... > Robert WB5MZO Life Member ARRL AMSAT I'd rather they be spending their precious time working on AMSAT business, getting us possible launches and making worthy contacts in industry than spending their time having to comment on each teapot tempest from the never-ending quibbling of the few nay-sayers and ankle-biters on here who have nothing else to do but complain and kibitz about everything. I hate having to spend time going through all this trash every time I check email... Bob ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
I did the calculations twice and got the same $3300 figure! However, I just redid the calculations and got the much lower figure! I did use 1970 and 2009 as the years. Frankly, I have no idea as to why the different figures! Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 1/17/10, Glen Zook wrote: > From: Glen Zook > Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Life Members > To: k...@live.com, "Amsat BB" , "Rocky Jones" > > Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 11:03 AM > Having been a life member (# 463) > since the very early days when life membership was first > offered I would like to "point out" that, "back then", life > membership wasn't "that cheap". In "today's dollars", > not "absolute dollars", is a pretty staggering sum! > > Based on the consumer price index, the $50 that I spent for > my life membership back around 1970 is today the equivalent > of right at $3300! That is 66 times in "absolute > dollars". Compare that to the present life membership > fee of $880. That means that we who obtained our life > memberships back in the early 1970s paid 3.75 times what new > life members are paying. > > If you don't believe these figures then do the calculations > on the following website: > > http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ > > However, the cash influx to AMSAT, at the time, was > definitely needed and the benefits from the life membership > fees of today's "olde tymers" allowed AMSAT to accomplish a > lot of things which would not have been possible without the > influx of cash. > > Therefore, I caution those who think that life members are > getting a "free ride" to stop and think about the true > situation. If it had not been for the "olde tyme" life > membership fees the organization would not be what it is > today IF the organization was still in existence! We > "olde tymers" happily paid a premium (when compared with the > present value of the dollar) to support the > organization. Today, many of us are on "fixed incomes" > and without our life memberships many of us would not be > able to afford continuing our memberships. "When the > going was tough, the tough got going" and contributed a > significant amount of money in terms of what the dollar is > worth today. > > The result is that we "paid our dues" (pun intended) and > AMSAT is still benefiting from our monentary contributions > today. We made an investment in the organization and > we certainly deserve to "reap" any benefits from that > investment. > > Glen, K9STH > AMSAT 239/LM 463 > > Website: http://k9sth.com > > > > ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
Glen, When I use your calculator, I get Tony's results ($277.17). The following is copied directly from the web page results using initial year "1970", initial amount "50.00", and desired year "2009": "Current data is only available till 2008. In 2008, $50.00 from 1970 is worth: $277.17 using the Consumer Price Index" What numbers are you using with the calculator? I followed up with a "sanity check" on the numbers to make sure the results are reasonable. The $277 figure corresponds to an average compounded annual inflation rate of 6.3% over 28 years. Your $3300 figure corresponds to an average compounded annual inflation rate of 16.1% over 28 years. $50 * (1+0.063)**28 = $276.63 $50 * (1+0.161)**28 = $3,267.93 Since I don't believe we've averaged 16% annual inflation for the past 28 years, I believe the $277 is closer to the right answer. Steve, N9IP -- Steve Belter (s...@wintek.com) > -Original Message- > From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On > Behalf Of Glen Zook > Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 1:55 PM > To: Amsat BB; Anthony Monteiro > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Life Members > > If you use the calculator that I referenced you will come out with the > figures that I quoted. There are several ways of measuring the worth and > those are shown on the calculator. Using the consumer price index as the > basis the figures are correct. Using other things as the basis you will > definitely come up with different figures. > > Glen, K9STH > > Website: http://k9sth.com > > > --- On Sun, 1/17/10, Anthony Monteiro wrote: > > > From: Anthony Monteiro > > Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Life Members > > To: "Glen Zook" , "Amsat BB" > > Cc: aa...@comcast.net > > Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 11:27 AM > > At 12:03 PM 1/17/2010, Glen Zook > > wrote: > > > ... > > > Based on the consumer price index, the $50 that I > > spent for my life membership back around 1970 is today the > > equivalent of right at $3300! That is 66 times in > > "absolute dollars". Compare that to the present life > > membership fee of $880. That means that we who > > obtained our life memberships back in the early 1970s paid > > 3.75 times what new life members are paying. > > > > > > If you don't believe these figures then do the > > calculations on the following website: > > > > > > http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ > > > > ... > > > > > > Hi Glen, > > > > I appreciate your sentiment about the fact that > > AMSAT needed the money back then but I don't think > > your math is correct. $1 in 1970 is equivalent to > > around $5.50 - $6.00 in todays dollars depending > > on how you compare it. > > > > Using the "Measuring Worth" web site, the CPI > > equivalent value of $50 in 1970 is $277.17 > > in 2009 dollars. > > > > > > 73, > > Tony AA2TX > > AMSAT VP Engineering ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
Probably a method more personal to one's finances is compare your paycheck at the time getting the life membership with what one is paid, today. If I do that for 1985 vs 2009 I get 92K/15K = 6.13 Of course It will not do for me to use 2010 pay as that is only Unemployment ;-) I still pay my full annual Amsat dues as I was not smart enough to get a life membership in early years. In July I will apply for my soc. sec. and try to live on 1/3 of working years pay. I do appreciate organizations that have a retired dues level. Of course for ham radio memberships that would be the majority - oops! 73, Ed - KL7UW At 09:54 AM 1/17/2010, Glen Zook wrote: >If you use the calculator that I referenced you will come out with >the figures that I quoted. There are several ways of measuring the >worth and those are shown on the calculator. Using the consumer >price index as the basis the figures are correct. Using other >things as the basis you will definitely come up with different figures. > >Glen, K9STH > >Website: http://k9sth.com > > >--- On Sun, 1/17/10, Anthony Monteiro wrote: > > > From: Anthony Monteiro > > Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Life Members > > To: "Glen Zook" , "Amsat BB" > > Cc: aa...@comcast.net > > Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 11:27 AM > > At 12:03 PM 1/17/2010, Glen Zook > > wrote: > > > ... > > > Based on the consumer price index, the $50 that I > > spent for my life membership back around 1970 is today the > > equivalent of right at $3300! That is 66 times in > > "absolute dollars". Compare that to the present life > > membership fee of $880. That means that we who > > obtained our life memberships back in the early 1970s paid > > 3.75 times what new life members are paying. > > > > > > If you don't believe these figures then do the > > calculations on the following website: > > > > > > http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ > > > > ... > > > > > > Hi Glen, > > > > I appreciate your sentiment about the fact that > > AMSAT needed the money back then but I don't think > > your math is correct. $1 in 1970 is equivalent to > > around $5.50 - $6.00 in todays dollars depending > > on how you compare it. > > > > Using the "Measuring Worth" web site, the CPI > > equivalent value of $50 in 1970 is $277.17 > > in 2009 dollars. > > > > > > 73, > > Tony AA2TX > > AMSAT VP Engineering > > > > > > > > > > > > >___ >Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. >Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! >Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
Glen. while I might quibble with some numbers, the sentiments you expressed are right on. The pejorative statements that a few made about life members (old etc) as well as the claim that people who are life members are making claims which are never stated, by saying that they are life members were completely inappropriate. It lacked knowledge and competence. In my view at least one of the BOD should have risen to the defense of the concept of life membership AND should have stated the obvious financial benefits to the organization of LM. While also urging all to participate in the LM concept. Have a great Sunday. Robert WB5MZO Life Member ARRL AMSAT > Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:03:01 -0800 > From: gz...@yahoo.com > Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Life Members > To: k...@live.com; amsat-bb@amsat.org; orbit...@hotmail.com > > Having been a life member (# 463) since the very early days when life > membership was first offered I would like to "point out" that, "back then", > life membership wasn't "that cheap". In "today's dollars", not "absolute > dollars", is a pretty staggering sum! > > Based on the consumer price index, the $50 that I spent for my life > membership back around 1970 is today the equivalent of right at $3300! That > is 66 times in "absolute dollars". Compare that to the present life > membership fee of $880. That means that we who obtained our life memberships > back in the early 1970s paid 3.75 times what new life members are paying. > > If you don't believe these figures then do the calculations on the following > website: > > http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ > > However, the cash influx to AMSAT, at the time, was definitely needed and the > benefits from the life membership fees of today's "olde tymers" allowed AMSAT > to accomplish a lot of things which would not have been possible without the > influx of cash. > > Therefore, I caution those who think that life members are getting a "free > ride" to stop and think about the true situation. If it had not been for the > "olde tyme" life membership fees the organization would not be what it is > today IF the organization was still in existence! We "olde tymers" happily > paid a premium (when compared with the present value of the dollar) to > support the organization. Today, many of us are on "fixed incomes" and > without our life memberships many of us would not be able to afford > continuing our memberships. "When the going was tough, the tough got going" > and contributed a significant amount of money in terms of what the dollar is > worth today. > > The result is that we "paid our dues" (pun intended) and AMSAT is still > benefiting from our monentary contributions today. We made an investment in > the organization and we certainly deserve to "reap" any benefits from that > investment. > > Glen, K9STH > AMSAT 239/LM 463 > > Website: http://k9sth.com > > > _ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/ ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
If you use the calculator that I referenced you will come out with the figures that I quoted. There are several ways of measuring the worth and those are shown on the calculator. Using the consumer price index as the basis the figures are correct. Using other things as the basis you will definitely come up with different figures. Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 1/17/10, Anthony Monteiro wrote: > From: Anthony Monteiro > Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Life Members > To: "Glen Zook" , "Amsat BB" > Cc: aa...@comcast.net > Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 11:27 AM > At 12:03 PM 1/17/2010, Glen Zook > wrote: > > ... > > Based on the consumer price index, the $50 that I > spent for my life membership back around 1970 is today the > equivalent of right at $3300! That is 66 times in > "absolute dollars". Compare that to the present life > membership fee of $880. That means that we who > obtained our life memberships back in the early 1970s paid > 3.75 times what new life members are paying. > > > > If you don't believe these figures then do the > calculations on the following website: > > > > http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ > > ... > > > Hi Glen, > > I appreciate your sentiment about the fact that > AMSAT needed the money back then but I don't think > your math is correct. $1 in 1970 is equivalent to > around $5.50 - $6.00 in todays dollars depending > on how you compare it. > > Using the "Measuring Worth" web site, the CPI > equivalent value of $50 in 1970 is $277.17 > in 2009 dollars. > > > 73, > Tony AA2TX > AMSAT VP Engineering > > > > ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
At 12:03 PM 1/17/2010, Glen Zook wrote: >... >Based on the consumer price index, the $50 that I spent for my life >membership back around 1970 is today the equivalent of right at >$3300! That is 66 times in "absolute dollars". Compare that to the >present life membership fee of $880. That means that we who >obtained our life memberships back in the early 1970s paid 3.75 >times what new life members are paying. > >If you don't believe these figures then do the calculations on the >following website: > >http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ ... Hi Glen, I appreciate your sentiment about the fact that AMSAT needed the money back then but I don't think your math is correct. $1 in 1970 is equivalent to around $5.50 - $6.00 in todays dollars depending on how you compare it. Using the "Measuring Worth" web site, the CPI equivalent value of $50 in 1970 is $277.17 in 2009 dollars. 73, Tony AA2TX AMSAT VP Engineering ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
Having been a life member (# 463) since the very early days when life membership was first offered I would like to "point out" that, "back then", life membership wasn't "that cheap". In "today's dollars", not "absolute dollars", is a pretty staggering sum! Based on the consumer price index, the $50 that I spent for my life membership back around 1970 is today the equivalent of right at $3300! That is 66 times in "absolute dollars". Compare that to the present life membership fee of $880. That means that we who obtained our life memberships back in the early 1970s paid 3.75 times what new life members are paying. If you don't believe these figures then do the calculations on the following website: http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ However, the cash influx to AMSAT, at the time, was definitely needed and the benefits from the life membership fees of today's "olde tymers" allowed AMSAT to accomplish a lot of things which would not have been possible without the influx of cash. Therefore, I caution those who think that life members are getting a "free ride" to stop and think about the true situation. If it had not been for the "olde tyme" life membership fees the organization would not be what it is today IF the organization was still in existence! We "olde tymers" happily paid a premium (when compared with the present value of the dollar) to support the organization. Today, many of us are on "fixed incomes" and without our life memberships many of us would not be able to afford continuing our memberships. "When the going was tough, the tough got going" and contributed a significant amount of money in terms of what the dollar is worth today. The result is that we "paid our dues" (pun intended) and AMSAT is still benefiting from our monentary contributions today. We made an investment in the organization and we certainly deserve to "reap" any benefits from that investment. Glen, K9STH AMSAT 239/LM 463 Website: http://k9sth.com ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
> > Since we are going down that path, I just wanted you to know that when I > read "Life Member" I hear the words "cheap", "discount", "looking for a > deal", "old fart" in my head. > > > Jeff, KE9V > Jeff. I am sure you do and thanks for sharing. It takes a bit of sophistication and some knowledge to get past that simplistic understanding. "perpetual memberships" if managed correctly (and with AMSAT I realize that is a big "IF") are not a "gift" soley for the member, ie give them cheap membership for life...they really are a gift for the organization and generally are a win win for both the member and the organization. BOD who set up perpetual memberships (USNI, ARRL The TAMU Association of Former Students to name three varying groups) dont do it just to give people "cheap" membership. They do it to allow the organization "base" money which when properly invested returns yearly far more then the membership cost (ie the magazine a percentage of member services etc). Obviously if an 18 year old invest in a perpetual membership and then succumbs within a few years...there is some "money made"...but if done correctly the 18 year olds membership will still be paying for the member services (again the mag etc) when the 18 year old is many many years older (far older then just the life membership divided by the average yearly cost of membership over a period of years). The "block money" over a given year is invested in a basic block investment (meaning the preceeding years) and the interest alone, more then works out. In addition done smartly the sum while drawing interest can be low interest borrowed against. when I was President of The community association that our house in Clear Lake is a part of (and it is far larger then AMSAT NA)...we started "life memberships" to the various facilities which were also available on a year to year basis fee. It wasnt hard to set it up...a major brokerage firm did it for us...and we make money on a "life membership" that last for 40 years (and that was only because the timelines couldnt be run out any farther) EVEN IF 50 percent of the residential property owners took advantage of the offer. A classmate manages life membership for USNI (United States Naval Institute) and a few other groups... and they make money on it...and that includes memberships that start at 22. When I was investigating "perpetual memberships" for our association I was told by this person that USNI would make money if over 50 percent of those applying for membership at 22 took life membership. I know you need both an arguing point, and doubtless have not thought the issue of life membership through all that much. Have fun with the arguing point, I am sure it makes you feel great... but like most "gut" feelings it is wrong. If AMSAT is not making money off of a life membership then someone somewhere really fracked up. And sadly it would not surprise me. Sorry to burst your bubble. I became a life member (and urge others to do the same) because it gives the organization a baseline of financing which to survive. Robert WB5MZO Life Member _ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/ ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Life Members
Only 25 years? My $100 has kept me going at least 35 years. On 16-Jan-10 14:29, Jeff Davis wrote: > The fact that you paid a hugely discounted price twenty-five years ago for a > "life" membership ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
