I recently joined the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), a professional organization comprised of computer types. Recently, I hit my first anniversary as a member, and in reviewing my options for renewal, I saw that one option was a Life Membership. Being curious about what it would cost, I went to their website and found that they offer different rates depending on the age of the member. Younger members paid more, older members paid less.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Older members aren’t going to be members for as long as younger members, so older members should pay less for a lifetime membership.
Unfortunately, the ARRL offers only one lifetime membership rate – $975. If I was 28 instead of 53, this may be an appealing option to me (assuming I could somehow scrape together the $975). At my age (53), though, lifetime membership really doesn’t buy me as much.
Let’s do a little comparison. For a member who is 53 years old, an ACM lifetime membership is $1,500. At the current rate of $80/year, that works out to 18.75 years. So, for every year, I live past 72, I’d making out on the deal, assuming that the ACM’s dues increase annually at the rate of inflation.
An ARRL lifetime membership costs $975. At the current rate of $39, that works out to 25 years. I’d have to live past 78 before I’m making out on the deal. That’s six more years.
If I could get an ARRL lifetime membership for ($975 – 6 * $39) = $741, then it would be more of a consideration for me. And, if you consider $975 to be the rate that a 25 year-old would pay, then a lifetime membership for a 53 year-old should probably be less.
This doesn’t seem like it would be a difficult calculation to make, and I would bet that if the ARRL offered something like this then they’d get more older guys to become life members.
Ronny Risinger says
The sliding scale for life memberships makes a lot of sense. Of course, younger people generally have less money, so a 25 year old might think sending almost $1k to ARRL is a bit much. How about a sliding scale where the younger people 18-30 pay less, the people in the middle with highest earnings potential, say 31-55, pay the highest rate, and then the rate declines for 56 and up. This encourages people to get in early and late when they have energy or time, or join in mid-life when they have the money.
This might be a weird idea, but seems to try to balance need for membership with financial reality of the members. What do you think?
73,
Ronny, KC5EES
Austin, TX
Monte says
KC5EES gets my vote and not only because I turn 55 next August.
Dan KB6NU says
You certainly have a point, Ronny, and I’d be inclined to go along with that suggestion, too.