what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#16

Post by Guaporense » 02 Nov 2010, 00:00

LWD wrote:
Guaporense wrote:... (the average american fighter cost 40,000 to 50,000 dollars). The ...
Where did you get this number? On the surface it seems a bit low. From what I recall P-51s ran around $50K but P-47s were around $75K and P-38s around $100K. I would assume that the latter carreir fighters also tended to be a bit more than the P-51 but could be wrong. The earlier fighters such as the P-39 and P-40 may have lowered the average but ...
There you go:

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t82.htm

Cost single engine fighters, in 1944:

P-39: 50,666 dollars
P-40: 44,892 dollars
P-47: 85,578 dollars
P-51: 51,572 dollars

There were some aircraft selling for 1.2 million!
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#17

Post by Guaporense » 02 Nov 2010, 00:08

LWD wrote:
Hanny wrote: ... That the US built more copies of a certain weapon type does not mean they were 'cheaper', the US procured expensive weapons, for example the Garand M1 was four times as expensive as the Kar 98, half again as expensive as an STG44. Tank prices are in line with those of the Soviet Union, ....
You have to be careful with statments like that to make sure it's really an "apples to apples" comparison. For instance the price of a lot of US systems in WWII included the cost of the factory to make them. US labor was also better paid than that in most other countries certainly better than Germanys and that's without considering forced labor. Indeed it's been pointed out in a couple of recent threads that a German POW in the US was actually making considerably more than he would have made as a worker in Germany.
If the cost of goods is higher, then he is not better paid. If you make twice as much money, but the prices are twice as high, your real wage is constant. For example, if the German worker is paid 25 cents an hour, and the price of a Panther is 32,000 dollars, while the price of a inferior tank, Sherman, is 50,000 dollars, them clearly, the real wage paid is more than 25 cents an hour. If a Sherman is worth 50,000 dollars, a Panther would be worth 75,000 dollars, since it's weight is 50% larger. So that the mark is hugely undervalued and the real german wage is 75/32x0.25= 59 cents an hour.

Also, Germany made much more K98 than the US made Garand M1's.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz


Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#18

Post by Hanny » 02 Nov 2010, 00:23

Guaporense wrote: There you go:

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t82.htm

Cost single engine fighters, in 1944:
P-40: 44,892 dollars
Something intresting from that site for its purchase cost earlier. I have no idea what the difference is so profound tho.
http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/War-Pla ... arhawk.htm
Price per unit aprox. $ 24,600

http://www.historynet.com/curtiss-p-40- ... ghters.htm
That meant that Curtiss could put the P-40 into production with a minimum of delay, and at the highly competitive price of $24,566.60 apiece.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t/p-40.htm
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#19

Post by Guaporense » 02 Nov 2010, 00:28

Hanny wrote:About 10 years ago i was follwing a topic on this and still have some of the thread, it may be of use to someone.All-in price for a Panther was $129,000 RM, or about US$32,000. Price for a Sherm was $40-$60,000 depending on the model.
If a Panther cost 129,000 RM, them it's price was 64,500 dollars. Why? Pre war exchange rate: 40 cents per RM. Inflation rates, 1939-1943: Germany, 6%, US, 27%, 21% greater in the US. Relative purchasing power parity exchange rate: ~50 cents per RM.
Final assembly of a Panther took 2,000 man hours. All-in including subcomponents 55,000 man hours. The 'cheap' Sherm? 48,000 man hours.
Only 7,000 hours more? Apparently, German tank production was superior to American in terms of productivity. Are you sure of these data? Because American manufacturing was usually more productive than German, I would view with suspicion this type of data.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#20

Post by Hanny » 02 Nov 2010, 01:01

If the cost of goods is higher, then he is not better paid.
Depends. Is the cost due to increase in man hours to produce a new inovation.
If you make twice as much money, but the prices are twice as high, your real wage is constant.
Ok resources are twice the initial cost, and wages are a constant, in this example how does one make twice as much money when costs of resources have doubled?.

Or do you mean to sale price is nothing to do with wage cost? as seems likly, as that is all profit margin increase.
For example, if the German worker is paid 25 cents an hour, and the price of a Panther is 32,000 dollars, while the price of a inferior tank, Sherman, is 50,000 dollars, them clearly, the real wage paid is more than 25 cents an hour. If a Sherman is worth 50,000 dollars, a Panther would be worth 75,000 dollars, since it's weight is 50% larger. So that the mark is hugely undervalued and the real german wage is 75/32x0.25= 59 cents an hour.
So now your argueing agaisnt your first statement.

Ok German labour cost is 0.25 an hour, Panther hours to produce is what appears here next.
US labour cost for a sherman follows the same, the amount of hours worked therfor determines who is better off when producing the differnet AFV.

Whatever the company can sell the end product for, is profit for the company, if it doubles or triples its profit is imaterial to the cost of the good in realtion to the wage payed to produce it which is a constant realted to the number of hours required to produce it.

Depends what comparison your makeing on K98 and Grands, US 6 million during the war, is that comapred to a like period?, Rifles and carbines the US produced 2,000,000 more during the war than Germany managed.

US Garands 6,117,827 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n27963828/

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econo ... ew1998.pdf
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#21

Post by Hanny » 02 Nov 2010, 01:26

Guaporense wrote:
If a Panther cost 129,000 RM, them it's price was 64,500 dollars. Why? Pre war exchange rate: 40 cents per RM. Inflation rates, 1939-1943: Germany, 6%, US, 27%, 21% greater in the US. Relative purchasing power parity exchange rate: ~50 cents per RM.
No. Try real numbers.http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/mar ... tm#infcalc

Final assembly of a Panther took 2,000 man hours. All-in including subcomponents 55,000 man hours. The 'cheap' Sherm? 48,000 man hours.
Only 7,000 hours more? Apparently, German tank production was superior to American in terms of productivity. Are you sure of these data? Because American manufacturing was usually more productive than German, I would view with suspicion this type of data.
Finshing your example, Geramn worker made 13,750 in man hours (55k*.25), while a US worker, made 12,000,(48k*.25) which compared to your claim "If the cost of goods is higher, then he is not better paid.", kinda means your maths needs work.

Depends on model/variant and year.
Last edited by Hanny on 02 Nov 2010, 21:09, edited 3 times in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#22

Post by LWD » 02 Nov 2010, 14:21

Guaporense wrote: ... If the cost of goods is higher, then he is not better paid. If you make twice as much money, but the prices are twice as high, your real wage is constant.
However this was far from the case.
For example, if the German worker is paid 25 cents an hour, and the price of a Panther is 32,000 dollars, while the price of a inferior tank, Sherman, is 50,000 dollars, them clearly, the real wage paid is more than 25 cents an hour.
Wrong on a couple of points. For one thing the wages paid aren't dependent on the value of the product after the fact. Nor was the Sherman inferior to the Panther as far as the US was concerned. Indeed the reverse would likely be true. The M-4 fit the US military and the Panther would not have.
If a Sherman is worth 50,000 dollars, a Panther would be worth 75,000 dollars, since it's weight is 50% larger.
Not really. A Panther sitting at a factory in the US is worth less than a Sherman at said factory. They are neaded at the front and the Sherman can get there easier and be supported easier and mesh with US doctrine and equipment better (and for that matter the same applies to many if not all our allies who were also supplied with them) not to mention it's designed to mesh with (i.e. share parts and assemblies) with other US systesm.
So that the mark is hugely undervalued and the real german wage is 75/32x0.25= 59 cents an hour.
??? Are you really typing that with a straight face?
Also, Germany made much more K98 than the US made Garand M1's.
And this is relevant how? Especially considering the period of manufacture and for that matter requirements.
Last edited by LWD on 02 Nov 2010, 20:04, edited 2 times in total.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#23

Post by Hanny » 02 Nov 2010, 19:20

And this is relevant how? Especially considering the period of manufacture and for that matter requirements.
Well maybe he thinks they did so, because the K98 5 round clip, against a Garnads 8, ment each German needed 2 rifles to get an edge....
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

vszulc
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 06:27

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#24

Post by vszulc » 02 Nov 2010, 20:14

Guaporense wrote: If the cost of goods is higher, then he is not better paid. If you make twice as much money, but the prices are twice as high, your real wage is constant. For example, if the German worker is paid 25 cents an hour, and the price of a Panther is 32,000 dollars, while the price of a inferior tank, Sherman, is 50,000 dollars, them clearly, the real wage paid is more than 25 cents an hour. If a Sherman is worth 50,000 dollars, a Panther would be worth 75,000 dollars, since it's weight is 50% larger. So that the mark is hugely undervalued and the real german wage is 75/32x0.25= 59 cents an hour.
That makes absolutely no sense. Labor costs is just one of many factors in the tanks final costs. Also, most German companies used slave labor. In which case the wage was paid to the SS (thereby going back to the Reichs budget), and not to the worker.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#25

Post by Guaporense » 03 Nov 2010, 18:10

LWD wrote:
Guaporense wrote: ... If the cost of goods is higher, then he is not better paid. If you make twice as much money, but the prices are twice as high, your real wage is constant.
However this was far from the case.
If you are using a exchange rate of 1 mark = 25 cents of a dollar, then prices in wartime Germany would be half of the prices in the US. The correct exchange rate is 1 mark = 50 cents of a dollar.
For example, if the German worker is paid 25 cents an hour, and the price of a Panther is 32,000 dollars, while the price of a inferior tank, Sherman, is 50,000 dollars, them clearly, the real wage paid is more than 25 cents an hour.
Wrong on a couple of points. For one thing the wages paid aren't dependent on the value of the product after the fact. Nor was the Sherman inferior to the Panther as far as the US was concerned. Indeed the reverse would likely be true. The M-4 fit the US military and the Panther would not have.
My point is: if nominal wages are 25 cents of a dollar, but the price level of a country is lower, then real wages is higher than nominal wages. Unless the Panther is cheaper than other goods in Germany at the time, however, my data doesn't point to that: a ton of steel in Germany was sold for ca 90 marks, a ton of steel in the US was sold for 47 dollars.

Also, the cost of producing a Panther would surely by higher in the US than the cost of producing a Sherman, since the Panther weight was 150% of the Sherman, while the Panther engine was much more powerful (700 HP to 400 HP) and the Panther 75mm gun was much more powerful than the Sherman 75mm or 76mm gun, which a muzzle velocity of 925 meters per second, compared to 619 meters per second of the Sherman (both armor piercing shell). The Panther fired a 7.2 kg shell at 925 meters per second, giving a kinetic energy of 3.08 million joules, while the Sherman fired a 6.32 kg shell at 619 meters per second, giving a kinetic energy of 1.21 million joules.

The Sherman wasn't a good tank for the American forces, giving the resources that the US had and the enemy that they faced. The Sherman would be a good tank for a long attrition war of numbers versus quality, but the American losses in the western front turned out small enough to make a more expensive and better tank the ideal for the US forces. A tank like the Sherman would be better for the Germans than for the Americans, while the Panther would be better for the Americans, since the Germans fought in the eastern front, where thousands of tanks were replaced every quarter.
If a Sherman is worth 50,000 dollars, a Panther would be worth 75,000 dollars, since it's weight is 50% larger.
Not really. A Panther sitting at a factory in the US is worth less than a Sherman at said factory. They are neaded at the front and the Sherman can get there easier and be supported easier and mesh with US doctrine and equipment better (and for that matter the same applies to many if not all our allies who were also supplied with them) not to mention it's designed to mesh with (i.e. share parts and assemblies) with other US systesm.
That's like saying that a ferrari is not worth more than an toytota because if the ferrari breaks I don't have the money to repair it. :lol:
So that the mark is hugely undervalued and the real german wage is 75/32x0.25= 59 cents an hour.
??? Are you really typing that with a straight face?
One would need to get the prices of more goods, but the mark was certainly worth more than 25 cents of a dollar, to say that the german worker made 25 cents an hour because he made 1 mark an hour is wrong.

For example, a German medium bomber, Ju-88 A-4, of empty weight of 8,550 kg cost 252,904 marks in 1943 (source: DEMYSTIFYING THE GERMAN “ARMAMENT MIRACLE” DURING WORLD WAR II. NEW INSIGHTS FROM THE ANNUAL AUDITS OF GERMAN AIRCRAFT PRODUCERS, page 40), while an American medium bomber, like the B-25, cost 151,894 dollars in 1943, it's empty weight was 9,580 kg (source: http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t82.htm). If we assume that the two are equivalent, them the mark would be worth 60 cents of a dollar, but since the B-25 is heavier this equivalence is not valid, we can say that the ton of Geman medium bomber cost 29,579 marks, while the ton of US medium bomber cost 15,855 dollars, giving an exchange rate of 1 mark = 53.6 cents of a dollar.

Other price data that I found support the PPP exchange rate of 1 mark ~= 50 cents.
Also, Germany made much more K98 than the US made Garand M1's.
And this is relevant how? Especially considering the period of manufacture and for that matter requirements.
The k98 was cheaper than the Garand, so I pointed out that they made more k98, with is consistent which the fact that it was cheaper.
Last edited by Guaporense on 03 Nov 2010, 18:19, edited 1 time in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#26

Post by Guaporense » 03 Nov 2010, 18:16

vszulc wrote:
Guaporense wrote: If the cost of goods is higher, then he is not better paid. If you make twice as much money, but the prices are twice as high, your real wage is constant. For example, if the German worker is paid 25 cents an hour, and the price of a Panther is 32,000 dollars, while the price of a inferior tank, Sherman, is 50,000 dollars, them clearly, the real wage paid is more than 25 cents an hour. If a Sherman is worth 50,000 dollars, a Panther would be worth 75,000 dollars, since it's weight is 50% larger. So that the mark is hugely undervalued and the real german wage is 75/32x0.25= 59 cents an hour.
That makes absolutely no sense. Labor costs is just one of many factors in the tanks final costs. Also, most German companies used slave labor. In which case the wage was paid to the SS (thereby going back to the Reichs budget), and not to the worker.
If the prices of goods in an economy are lower than the prices of goods in another economy, then the REAL wage is higher than the nominal wage.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#27

Post by Hanny » 03 Nov 2010, 18:42

Guaporense wrote:
The Sherman wasn't a good tank for the American forces, giving the resources that the US had and the enemy that they faced. The Sherman would be a good tank for a long attrition war of numbers versus quality, but the American losses in the western front turned out small enough to make a more expensive and better tank the ideal for the US forces. .
Very ex post facto thinking.

Of the bat the US built a tank from what it could at the time, this produced a Sherman that could fit onto existing shipping assets which determined much of what form the AFV took, as that determined if it could get to where the conflict was. It was good enough for most of the war, as it fitted into a the US methodolgy nicely even when it was outclassed by the latter war panthers and Tigers, most Germans faced an allied tank and during the war, most allied never had to front up a Tiger, and some ID went the whole war without facing a Panther either in NWE.

In 42 iirc the US admitted to itself the Shermans were not fit for purpose, but they did not stop them from defeating Germany with them, as a weapons system is meerly one part of the whole, and the Sherman was good enough, as part of that whole) to crush Germany.

From prior post on this i refered to on this earlier.
I started by looking at relative cost of each as a % of GDP, this would provide a reference to the relative cost of a given tank to a given country, not the absolute cost of a given vehicle. I imagine it is possible for a Sherm to be relatively cheaper for the US to procure than a Pz I to Germany (or a B-17 vis-a-vis a Ju-87), but the point I'm trying to make is that although Everyone-Knows-Shermans-Were-Cheap, the absolute numbers reflect the exact opposite.


The only data point that I have that is relevant from the German side is 1943, since that is the year of the Panther's debut, and economic info for '44 and '45 i dont have.

That year the Germans produced 1,700 Panther Ds & As. The GNP + Other Expenditures was 184 billion Reichmarks.

The US accepted into service 48,000 Shermans during the war, which is not what was built, but was what was paid for, and enterd service with the US army, what was built is not the same thing.

Comes out to:

Amount of 'National Effort' (got to call it something) expended:

Panthers - .00116 for 1,700 vehicles (1943)
Shermans - .0048 for 48,000 vehicles (1942-1945)

Normalizing to 1%:

German 1% 'National Effort' = 14,651 Panthers
US 1% 'National Effort' = 100,000 Shermans

That comes to 6.82 Shermas per Panther per unit of 'National Effort' dedicated to tank production. There is an importan caveat though, in 1943, the US Economy was 6.52 times bigger than the German economy, so the number has to be adjusted to account for that (simply put, the 1% of US GDP was 6.5x times larger than the 1% of German GDP in absolute terms).

The final result is that for equivalent 'national economic effort', the US could build 1.04 Shermans for each Panther the Germans built. IOW, about 4% cheaper than a Panther.

Thats a rough look at it, you can dig as dep as you like, looking at profit margins, US 40% typical, as german 18% typical, labour costs and so on, but what i said is good enough to go with.





Army Service Forces Catalog ORD 5-3-1 dated 9 August 1945.

M4(75)VVSS $49,173
M4(105)VVSS $46,309
M4(105)HVSS/T66 $49,621
M4(105)HVSS/T80 $53,391
M4A1(75)VVSS $47,725
M4A1(76)VVSS $51,509
M4A1(76)HVSS/T66 $54,062
M4A1(76)HVSS/T80 $45,814
M4A2(76)VVSS $45,863
M4A2(76)HVSS/T66 $48,029
M4A2(76)HVSS/T80 $50,928
M4A3(75)dry VVSS $44,556
M4A3(75)dry HVSS/T66 $47,003
M4A3(75)dry HVSS/T80 $49,997
M4A3E2 $56,812
M4A3(105)VVSS $45,776
M4A3(105)HVSS/T66 $49,088
M4A3(105)HVSS/T80 $52,836
M4A3(75)wet VVSS $44,556
M4A3(75)wet HVSS/T66 $47,003
M4A3(75)wet HVSS/T80 $49,997
M4A3(76)wet VVSS $47,754
M4A3(76)wet HVSS/T66 $51,066
M4A3(76)wet HVSS/T80 $54,836
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#28

Post by LWD » 03 Nov 2010, 19:24

Guaporense wrote:
LWD wrote:
Guaporense wrote: ... If the cost of goods is higher, then he is not better paid. If you make twice as much money, but the prices are twice as high, your real wage is constant.
However this was far from the case.
If you are using a exchange rate of 1 mark = 25 cents of a dollar, then prices in wartime Germany would be half of the prices in the US. The correct exchange rate is 1 mark = 50 cents of a dollar.
The "correct" exchange rate is not as easily definable as that.
For example, if the German worker is paid 25 cents an hour, and the price of a Panther is 32,000 dollars, while the price of a inferior tank, Sherman, is 50,000 dollars, them clearly, the real wage paid is more than 25 cents an hour.
No it is not. The "real" wage paid is not dependent on the price or the utility of the product and as I stated before your assumption of inferiority is debateable.
... My point is: if nominal wages are 25 cents of a dollar, but the price level of a country is lower, then real wages is higher than nominal wages. Unless the Panther is cheaper than other goods in Germany at the time, however, my data doesn't point to that: a ton of steel in Germany was sold for ca 90 marks, a ton of steel in the US was sold for 47 dollars.
But weren't price controls in effect? If they were on steel then it's not a particulalry good material to judge by is it? Indeed we've seen in the food sector considerable variation in pricing.
Also, the cost of producing a Panther would surely by higher in the US than the cost of producing a Sherman, since the Panther weight was 150% of the Sherman, while the Panther engine was much more powerful (700 HP to 400 HP) and the Panther 75mm gun was much more powerful than the Sherman 75mm or 76mm gun, which a muzzle velocity of 925 meters per second, compared to 619 meters per second of the Sherman (both armor piercing shell). The Panther fired a 7.2 kg shell at 925 meters per second, giving a kinetic energy of 3.08 million joules, while the Sherman fired a 6.32 kg shell at 619 meters per second, giving a kinetic energy of 1.21 million joules.
Perhaps but perhaps not. I would argue that the greater complexity of the Panther would be more of a factor in it's cost being higher than the above. One could compare the costs of the Pershing and Sherman to perhaps get a better feel for this. But even so some of the reasons the Sherman would be lowere would incude part comanality with other systems.
The Sherman wasn't a good tank for the American forces,
No it was an excelent tank for the US military.
giving the resources that the US had and the enemy that they faced.
Especially considering the above.
The Sherman would be a good tank for a long attrition war of numbers versus quality, but the American losses in the western front turned out small enough to make a more expensive and better tank the ideal for the US forces.
No. In part because you are only looking at part of the picture.
...
If a Sherman is worth 50,000 dollars, a Panther would be worth 75,000 dollars, since it's weight is 50% larger.
Not really. A Panther sitting at a factory in the US is worth less than a Sherman at said factory. They are neaded at the front and the Sherman can get there easier and be supported easier and mesh with US doctrine and equipment better (and for that matter the same applies to many if not all our allies who were also supplied with them) not to mention it's designed to mesh with (i.e. share parts and assemblies) with other US systesm.
That's like saying that a ferrari is not worth more than an toytota because if the ferrari breaks I don't have the money to repair it. :lol:
Indeed a Toyota that runs has more utilty than a Ferrari that's in the garage for repair. And if I'm say a cab company having 100 Toyota's that are available 90% of the time is much better than having 25 Ferraris that are available 70% of the time. Not to mention that it cost me less to run and to repair the Toyota's.

We've seen in our look at food prices that the mark had a fraction of the buying power of the dollar that depending on comodity ranged downward from ~75% to under 25%. Furthermore the averabe German worker had too spend a higher portion of his wages on housing (from Wages of Destruction. While it's difficult to eassign an exact value in dollars to the equivalant wage of a German worker it was clearly much less than a US worker recieved. That's without taking into account forced and slave labor which were a part of German armament production.
For example, a German medium bomber, Ju-88 A-4, of empty weight of 8,550 kg cost 252,904 marks in 1943 (source: DEMYSTIFYING THE GERMAN “ARMAMENT MIRACLE” DURING WORLD WAR II. NEW INSIGHTS FROM THE ANNUAL AUDITS OF GERMAN AIRCRAFT PRODUCERS, page 40), while an American medium bomber, like the B-25, cost 151,894 dollars in 1943, it's empty weight was 9,580 kg (source: http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t82.htm). If we assume that the two are equivalent, them the mark would be worth 60 cents of a dollar, but since the B-25 is heavier this equivalence is not valid, we can say that the ton of Geman medium bomber cost 29,579 marks, while the ton of US medium bomber cost 15,855 dollars, giving an exchange rate of 1 mark = 53.6 cents of a dollar.
Just because you can say it doesn't make it correct. Value of planes is hardly based simply on weight. The US plane for instance carried twice the bomb load and had a longer range. Or to look at it another way run your math adding the Mosquito to the equation.
Other price data that I found support the PPP exchange rate of 1 mark ~= 50 cents.
And yet other data can be found that contradicts it.
Also, Germany made much more K98 than the US made Garand M1's.
And this is relevant how? Especially considering the period of manufacture and for that matter requirements.
The k98 was cheaper than the Garand, so I pointed out that they made more k98, with is consistent which the fact that it was cheaper.
Not really. Production of the Garand was not price limited. It took a while for production to ramp up and the US had the Springfield which on a par with the K98. If the Garand had gone into production in 34 or 35 the US would probably have made more of them than the Germans made K-98's in that period.

vszulc
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 06:27

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#29

Post by vszulc » 03 Nov 2010, 20:58

If the prices of goods in an economy are lower than the prices of goods in another economy, then the REAL wage is higher than the nominal wage.
That's an amazingly simplistic and, well, wrong argument.
What if its a poorer country, like Germany as opposed to the US before the war, and goods are (for example) 30 percent lower, but wages are 60% lower. Care to elaborate on that?

Or we could be talking a about a command-economy, where the nominal wages are the same, goods are 30% cheaper, but there's a shortage of goods, leading to empty store shelves and a thriving black market. Would the real wage still be higher, according to your (rather defective) rule of thumb?

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: what weapon could $16,000 bought in 1944?

#30

Post by Hanny » 03 Nov 2010, 21:26

If the prices of goods in an economy are lower than the prices of goods in another economy, then the REAL wage is higher than the nominal wage.
Yes those Chinese workers are raking it in compared to the US ones, http://www.worldsalaries.org/china.shtml
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Post Reply

Return to “Economy”