Historic Money

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSox_Giants_Devils_Nicks. Show RedSox_Giants_Devils_Nicks's posts

    Historic Money

    This is really cool i think. People always say when I bring up Babe Ruth or Ted williams contracts that "well in todays money they were probably making 10 or 15 mil." Well now I can check that

    It's all about CPI (Consumer Price Index)

    Money of year "T" x (CPI today/CPI year T)


    so Babe Ruth in 1931 Made 80,000:

    80,000 x (224.939/15.2) = $1,183,889.47

    Ted Williams in 1949 made 100,000:

    100,000 x (224.939/23.8) = $945,121.85

    Carl Yastrzemski in 1975 made 175,000:

    175000 x (224.939/53.8) = $731,678.90

    Carl Crawford is set to make 19,500,000 in 2012 so in 1985 when nolan Ryan got press for making over $1 million:

    19500000 x (107.6/224.939) = $9,327,862.22


     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    What is also surprising is that Ted got a raise in 1950 to $125,000 and stayed at that through 1959 when he demanded a cut in salary down to $90,000.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In 1949, only the affluent had TV sets and those had a 9" B&W screen and cost over $400 which in today's prices would be $4,000. In the 1950s there was one game per week televised nationally on Saturday afternoons.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    People like to b^tch about the money athletes make ( and I'm not saying it's completely wrong...I do it too...maybe more than most), but they forget that the slackers in Washington D.C. ( no, not the Nationals!...YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ) get paid lots of our tax money to talk and posture and argue and fight and disagree and basically spin their wheels while the world continues to turn and problems get worse instead of better.

    This is what we should be worried about. Pro sports is funded by money we choose to spend, politics is funded by money we are required to spend. You can say "no" to a sport if you have become fed up with it ( for me ,it's football and hockey)...try saying "no" to paying tax money if you become fed up with how your so-called leaders are using it.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In Response to Re: Historic Money:
    [QUOTE]People like to b^tch about the money athletes make ( and I'm not saying it's completely wrong...I do it too...maybe more than most), but they forget that the slackers in Washington D.C. ( no, not the Nationals!...YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ) get paid lots of our tax money to talk and posture and argue and fight and disagree and basically spin their wheels while the world continues to turn and problems get worse instead of better. This is what we should be worried about. Pro sports is funded by money we choose to spend, politics is funded by money we are required to spend. You can say "no" to a sport if you have become fed up with it ( for me ,it's football and hockey)...try saying "no" to paying tax money if you become fed up with how your so-called leaders are using it.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]

    Are you saying that you don't want a strong military so that we can be the policeman of the world, subsidize an over supply of corn, subsidize corporations, have fire and police protection, clean air, water, and national parks, have enough prisons, interstates, bridges, and dredged rivers and canals? Do you want expert medical colleges, hospital, and clinics, safe food, and sanitary grocery stores. Are you against all taxes or just the ones that Rush Limbaugh tells you to be against?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: Historic Money

     ...and the Census in 1950 showed 150,697,000 residents. There are more people to support the activities of sports teams. big deal, no story here. Also more non-sports fans than ever before.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortMeade. Show FortMeade's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In Response to Re: Historic Money:
    [QUOTE] ...and the Census in 1950 showed 150,697,000 residents. There are more people to support the activities of sports teams. big deal, no story here. Also more non-sports fans than ever before.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]

    The population in 2011 of the US is now 311 mil. and in 1950 was 151 mil. as you said. That is roughly a 100 percent increase. The analysis in the Opening Post showed a 1000 percent increase in CPI. The increase in population does not begin to justify the change in MLB salaries.  Yes, there is a story here. Stop being so headstrong. obstinate, and thick-skulled. Think next time before you post. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In Response to Re: Historic Money:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Historic Money : The population in 2011 of the US is now 311 mil. and in 1950 was 151 mil. as you said. That is roughly a 100 percent increase. The analysis in the Opening Post showed a 1000 percent increase in CPI. The increase in population does not begin to justify the change in MLB salaries.  Yes, there is a story here. Stop being so headstrong. obstinate, and thick-skulled. Think next time before you post. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.
    Posted by FortMeade[/QUOTE]

     More people means more revenue, and more people means more consumers, which means more products and services from more companies with more advertising revenue to throw at cable, namimg rights, pay to view and what not, see if you can keep up. It's not a simple math formula, it's the principal of exponentiality, D'OH!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In Response to Re: Historic Money:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Historic Money : The population in 2011 of the US is now 311 mil. and in 1950 was 151 mil. as you said. That is roughly a 100 percent increase. The analysis in the Opening Post showed a 1000 percent increase in CPI. The increase in population does not begin to justify the change in MLB salaries.  Yes, there is a story here. Stop being so headstrong. obstinate, and thick-skulled. Think next time before you post. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.
    Posted by FortMeade[/QUOTE]

     AS DAD WOULD SAY, "YOUK, GIVE UP, YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!!!!!!!"
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    How about a maximum wage?  In England, until 1961 there was a maximum wage of £20/week for professional footballers.  In 1961 the average UK house sale price was £2,700 which seems a reasonable way to make a comparison but avoid the difficult inflation and FX translations.

    The average price of a US house sold in October 2011 was $242,300, so an equivalent maximum wage would have been $93,330.

    Of course, $93k is nothing to sneeze at for normal people, but that would be for only elite players and for someone at the top of their trade it's not that much money.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In Response to Re: Historic Money:
    [QUOTE]How about a maximum wage?  In England, until 1961 there was a maximum wage of £20/week for professional footballers.  In 1961 the average UK house sale price was £2,700 which seems a reasonable way to make a comparison but avoid the difficult inflation and FX translations. The average price of a US house sold in October 2011 was $242,300, so an equivalent maximum wage would have been $93,330. Of course, $93k is nothing to sneeze at for normal people, but that would be for only elite players and for someone at the top of their trade it's not that much money.
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]

     PRODUCTS AND SERVICE DON'T MAINTAIN THEIR RELATIVE VALUES THROUGH TIME, a professional ball player is worth what he gets, by the definition of value, what shocks people is they expect values to be consistent over time, they're not, period.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortMeade. Show FortMeade's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    You lose. The CPI is the measure that is used in these situations to compare the relative real salary differences over time. Try Economics 101 which is taught at any college. It is also used to track other components such as relative costs of food, housing, transportation, entertainment, insurance, and health care over time. Give it up and admit that you are wrong on this. Double the population would only translate to double the salaries and that is what you attributed the increase to in your post of 8:38 pm. You said " no story here" and then you later added on the other factors. You attributed it all to population ( "No Story here" ) and then corrected yourself five minutes later.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In Response to Re: Historic Money:
    [QUOTE]You lose. The CPI is the measure that is used in these situations to compare the relative real salary differences over time. Try Economics 101 which is taught at any college. It is also used to track other components such as relative costs of food, housing, transportation, entertainment, insurance, and health care over time. Give it up and admit that you are wrong on this. Double the population would only translate to double the salaries and that is what you attributed the increase to in your post of 8:38 pm. You said " no story here" and then you later added on the other factors. You attributed it all to population ( "No Story here" ) and then corrected yourself five minutes later.
    Posted by FortMeade[/QUOTE]
      Even though the CPI is used, doesn't make it right. Consumers decide how and where to spend their limited resources, this is the essence of economics. The "science" of economics is so often wrong, one should put very little faith into what an economist states. For example, households today spend a portion of their funds on cell phones, a commodity not found in 1950. So, obviously, consumer choices change, prices change, and values change. Big Papi is "worth" every penny, you are arguing the opposite, dumb man, dumb.
     The Keynesians have been in vogue lately, but they'll fall out of favor soon enough. Economist, explain what happened, they are historians, they can not tell you what will happen. Sorry, you are so confused on this.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortMeade. Show FortMeade's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    OK, have it your way and attribute it all to population as you did in your post of 8:38. You said "No story here" which inferred that the ten fold increase in salaries was solely attributable to population and not to other factors. Yep, have it your way. Good night.
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In Response to Re: Historic Money:
    [QUOTE]All this other stuff...popluation increases, etc. doesn't speak as much as to why the players as compensated so well.  Using that as an example, if baseball revenues go up because of population increases -- prior to free agency, the overwhelming majority of that increase goes directly to the owner/ballclub...a small percentage to the players.  Post free-agency, a much larger percentage of that increase goes to the players.  Players should pray to St. Curt before each game. 
    Posted by bellhorn_[/QUOTE]
     
     As for Free Agency, paying for past performance is bad economics, it's like buying your neighbor's used car, cause it always drove well for him, without regarding the mileage he put on it.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In Response to Re: Historic Money:
    [QUOTE]People like to b^tch about the money athletes make ( and I'm not saying it's completely wrong...I do it too...maybe more than most), but they forget that the slackers in Washington D.C. ( no, not the Nationals!...YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ) get paid lots of our tax money to talk and posture and argue and fight and disagree and basically spin their wheels while the world continues to turn and problems get worse instead of better. This is what we should be worried about. Pro sports is funded by money we choose to spend, politics is funded by money we are required to spend. You can say "no" to a sport if you have become fed up with it ( for me ,it's football and hockey)...try saying "no" to paying tax money if you become fed up with how your so-called leaders are using it.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]

    Most of those guys could make a lot more in the private sector than they get paid by the tax payers.  Most of their money is from insider trading deals and by penning poorly written books that are bought up by the truck load by "supporters" who give them as gifts to people attending their speeches.

    Personally, I wished they were paid more, there were caps on how much they could spend on campaigns, and super pacs were outlawed.  They would be more trustworthy, would spend less time fundraising and more time on their jobs, and would not be beholden to the really wealthy.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In Response to Historic Money:
    [QUOTE]This is really cool i think. People always say when I bring up Babe Ruth or Ted williams contracts that "well in todays money they were probably making 10 or 15 mil." Well now I can check that It's all about CPI (Consumer Price Index) Money of year "T" x (CPI today/CPI year T) ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt so Babe Ruth in 1931 Made 80,000: 80,000 x (224.939/15.2) = $1,183,889.47 Ted Williams in 1949 made 100,000: 100,000 x (224.939/23.8) = $945,121.85 Carl Yastrzemski in 1975 made 175,000: 175000 x (224.939/53.8) = $731,678.90 Carl Crawford is set to make 19,500,000 in 2012 so in 1985 when nolan Ryan got press for making over $1 million: 19500000 x (107.6/224.939) = $9,327,862.22
    Posted by RedSox_Giants_Devils_Nicks[/QUOTE]

    Oh, Sorry ... thought your post was Historic Manny .....

         {8oD



    Interesting reading, tho'   Thanks
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaffyDan. Show DaffyDan's posts

    Re: Historic Money

    In Response to Re: Historic Money:
    [QUOTE]You lose. The CPI is the measure that is used in these situations to compare the relative real salary differences over time. Try Economics 101 which is taught at any college. It is also used to track other components such as relative costs of food, housing, transportation, entertainment, insurance, and health care over time. Give it up and admit that you are wrong on this. Double the population would only translate to double the salaries and that is what you attributed the increase to in your post of 8:38 pm. You said " no story here" and then you later added on the other factors. You attributed it all to population ( "No Story here" ) and then corrected yourself five minutes later.
    Posted by FortMeade[/QUOTE]

    And now from someone who actually knows what they are talking about comes this:

    "Babe Ruth signed a contract on March 10, 1930 with the American League Base Ball Club of New York (The Yankees) to play baseball for the next two years at an annual salary of $80,000. In 2010 the CPI was 14 times larger than it was in 1931, and the GDP deflator was 12 times larger. This means that if we are interested in Ruth's purchasing power of housing or meals, then he was "earning" the equivalence of about $1,000,000 today.

    In 2010, the average consumer unit spends about 32 times in dollars more than it spent 76 years earlier. Thus, if we want to compare Ruth's earnings using the index of what the average household buys, it would be over $2,500,000 today. The relative cost of labor is 42 times (unskilled) and 50 time (manufacturing production workers) higher in 2010 than in 1932. So if we wanted to compare his wage to what someone selling hot dogs would earn, we could say his "relative wage" is three and a half to four million.

    GDP per capita and GDP are 75 and 186 times larger in 2010 than they were in 1931. Thus Ruth's earnings relative to the average output would be $6,100,000 today. Finally, as a share of GDP, Ruth's "output" that year would be $15,300,000 in today's money."

    http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

    -Daf.


     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share