Rate Schedule

How about adjusting the prices and rates quoted for inflation?

http://www.calculator.net/inflation-calculator.html

$1.00 in 1968 = $7.20 in 2017, for example.

The other detail, of course is the rate of capitalization. Back in 1968, Utah surveying probably involved only a transit (or compass) and tape.

Kent McMillan, post: 425629, member: 3 wrote: How about adjusting the prices and rates quoted for inflation?

http://www.calculator.net/inflation-calculator.html

Kent,

Go for it, I believe that the above sheet was for 1964.

I thought of you when I saw it tonight, and figured you'd get a kick out it.

Loyal

Loyal, post: 425630, member: 228 wrote: Kent,

Go for it, I believe that the above sheet was for 1964.

I thought of you when I saw it tonight, and figured you'd get a kick out it.

Loyal

Okay, $1.00 in 1964 dollars would be roughly equivalent to about $8.00 in 2017 dollars. However, that 1964 surveyor most likely considered a transit and tape to be adequate for nearly any land survey. So surveyors weren't also paying off some expensive equipment purchases that had to be figured into the rate schedule as well.

Although, when you figure in real estate prices for some place like, say, Austin, Texas, the inflation factor of 8 x 1964 dollars isn't even close. For example, a house and lot that cost $24k in 1964 would probably be worth more than $500k in 2017 (and likely more than $750k). That's an inflation factor of more than 20, not 8.

That's interesting. Some of the figures are still pretty close using Kent's inflation factor of 8.

I roughly figure a rural subdivision in my area is going to cost about 300-350 per lot plus 600-1000 for design. One man today can replace a two man crew from then, so I'd compare the 2 man rate from then to 1 man today. The 2 man rate from then was 11 per hour, which would be 88 in today's money. That's pretty close to what I charge.

The per mile expense seems high, but I don't charge for mileage so I can't say that with any authority. Also not sure what the two mileage costs mean.

Wow. I've seen restaurant menus here in Savannah that are higher than that. I wonder what a cheeseburger cost back then?

Shawn Billings, post: 425651, member: 6521 wrote: I roughly figure a rural subdivision in my area is going to cost about 300-350 per lot plus 600-1000 for design

In the county I'm sitting in right now, the planning department review fees for a ten lot subdivision are

preliminary subdivision $2,500 + $365/lot
site plan $5,500 + $165/lot
final subdivision plat $2,000 / page

$15,300

That's not including the review fees from public works or the required environments plans (at a minimum a "Natural Resources Inventory", probably have to prepare a "Forest Conservation Plan" as well)

That said, a half acre lot goes for $200,000 - $1,000,000+ depending on the neighborhood :scream:

It depends a lot on the county but we don't have anything approaching that. Those regulations sound oppressive. Here a half acre lot in a rural subdivision will cost 25000 to 50000 depending on the neighborhood.

In a city or extra-territorial jurisdiction of a city the cost goes up due to additional requirements and submittals.

Kent McMillan, post: 425631, member: 3 wrote: Okay, $1.00 in 1964 dollars would be roughly equivalent to about $8.00 in 2017 dollars. However, that 1964 surveyor most likely considered a transit and tape to be adequate for nearly any land survey. So surveyors weren't also paying off some expensive equipment purchases that had to be figured into the rate schedule as well.

A transit and tape is still adequate for most surveys, the reason that no one uses them is the large investment in time and labor they require. I just completed a survey yesterday in one day with two people that would have taken 2 weeks with 4 people using a transit and tape. That would have cost the client much more.

I think our expensive equipment results in lower rates, not higher.

aliquot, post: 425659, member: 2486 wrote: I think our expensive equipment results in lower rates, not higher.

I never went to business school so maybe I'm wrong, but I would think if we were very smart that the investment in technology would result in a higher rate (i.e. per hour) than the previously more labor intensive approach. Why would we invest more money into equipment and training to do the same job we did before faster and at a lower rate? It makes no sense economically. You'll end up making less money with more investment. Best is when we make more per hour and the client pays less overall than before.

For example, if you did a job in one day with two people that would have taken 2 weeks with four people before...
in 1964, 4man crew at $18.50/hour (x8 for inflation = $148, let's call it $150) x 80 hours = $12,000 (2017 dollars)
2man crew at $__________(today's rate) x 8 hours = $____________ (2017 dollars)

If today's crew rate is just adjusted for inflation, it's $88 per hour, which is $704 (2017 dollars).

Now let's say that we bumped the rate, beyond correcting for inflation, by 2, that's $176 per hour. The field work would cost $1408 (2017 dollars). The rate has doubled, even after correcting for inflation, but the customer is paying only a fraction of the cost using old methods (if the 2 week time frame is accurate). But the point is, the rate should go up. We benefit because we make more per hour. This still requires an increase in volume over our predecessors to actually make more money than our predecessors if our rates don't proportionately increase to account for the time savings. In this example our rates would need to increase by 10 (1 day vs. 14 days) if we don't increase our volume. Our investment in technology also is to our client's benefit. The client may pay more per hour for the work being performed, but pays less overall ($12,000 vs. $1408 in our example). If we're investing resources to implement new technology to make the same money per hour as before, then we are fools.

Wow $11.00/hour for a 2 man crew, that's $284.00 less than I charge.

For some reason it always stuck with me; after a trip my dad came back complaining that the supper club he went to actually charged a $1.50 for a steak dinner. He was very shocked that they would charge so much, this was about 1964, maybe a bit earlier.

Shawn Billings, post: 425668, member: 6521 wrote: I never went to business school so maybe I'm wrong, but I would think if we were very smart that the investment in technology would result in a higher rate (i.e. per hour) than the previously more labor intensive approach. Why would we invest more money into equipment and training to do the same job we did before faster and at a lower rate? It makes no sense economically. You'll end up making less money with more investment. Best is when we make more per hour and the client pays less overall than before.

For example, if you did a job in one day with two people that would have taken 2 weeks with four people before...
in 1964, 4man crew at $18.50/hour (x8 for inflation = $148, let's call it $150) x 80 hours = $12,000 (2017 dollars)
2man crew at $__________(today's rate) x 8 hours = $____________ (2017 dollars)

If today's crew rate is just adjusted for inflation, it's $88 per hour, which is $704 (2017 dollars).

Now let's say that we bumped the rate, beyond correcting for inflation, by 2, that's $176 per hour. The field work would cost $1408 (2017 dollars). The rate has doubled, even after correcting for inflation, but the customer is paying only a fraction of the cost using old methods (if the 2 week time frame is accurate). But the point is, the rate should go up. We benefit because we make more per hour. This still requires an increase in volume over our predecessors to actually make more money than our predecessors if our rates don't proportionately increase to account for the time savings. In this example our rates would need to increase by 10 (1 day vs. 14 days) if we don't increase our volume. Our investment in technology also is to our client's benefit. The client may pay more per hour for the work being performed, but pays less overall ($12,000 vs. $1408 in our example). If we're investing resources to implement new technology to make the same money per hour as before, then we are fools.

This is where you plug in that Lump Sum cost.