TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] Service Rates

To: "k9yc@arrl.net" <k9yc@arrl.net>, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Service Rates
From: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:40:00 -0500
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Man, do you know how to ruin a pity party/botch session!

Kudos!

Kim Elmore N5OP

"People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long as the 
music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith

> On Jul 14, 2015, at 15:35, Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon,7/13/2015 12:52 PM, Steve Berg wrote:
>> Back in 1979 Motorola was billing $65.00 an hour for my efforts. So, what 
>> Ten Tec is charging is not really out of line.
> 
> In the 70s, I had jobs doing both field and bench service, as well as 
> managing the service department of a sound and video contractor. We were 
> charging $60 then, and that rate was needed to cover our costs. In addition 
> to the hourly wages of the service tech, there are taxes and various benefits 
> like health insurance. Then there's the real estate needed for the service 
> shop and to hold spare parts -- at least a couple of rooms -- test equipment, 
> the stock of parts itself, utilities (electricity, heat, telephone), an 
> accounting person to do billing, and so on. For field service, there were the 
> added costs associated with travel, including a vehicle equipped with test 
> equipment and spare parts.
> 
> At a 3% average rate of inflation, $65 in 1979 translates to $188 in 2015. 
> For 2% average, it's $132.60.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>