3 ms·
>Apple: $1,865,306 per employee Also, that Business Insider article is an inadvertent IQ test for people who want to regurgitate their figures. That $1.8 mill
by jasode 11y ago
>Apple: $1,865,306 per employee
Also, that Business Insider article is an inadvertent IQ test for people who want to regurgitate their figures. That $1.8 million number is revenue/#employees and not profit/#employees. Using profit calculation of $53B/98k is ~$500k. Since, a fully-loaded FTE in Silicon Valley is ~$250k, the ~$500k doesn't look that insane.
If a writer copy&pastes stuff like that into their own essay without critical thought, don't be surprised if it taints the rest of his essay. For example, the "you are not a commodity" is not fully reasoned out. In the essay, it's just an empty platitude/affirmation instead of explaining why some programmers are treated as commodities and how to differentiate themselves to avoid that categorization.
- mistersquid 11y agoThese numbers are provided in a different context (to measure Twitter's loss against profits of other well-known highly-valued technology companies: https://twitter.com/dcurtis/status/694586397588467712 https://twitter.com/dcurtis/status/694586397588467712 I don't know the source of Curtis's data.
- carboncopy 11y agoIf you use profit/#employees, then you're double-counting. The employees' salaries are already taken out of profit. That's why it's not fully disingenuous to consider revenue instead. $500k of profit generated per employee sounds excellent, but it's also omitting other capital costs made by the business. Essentially, none of these benchmarks can give you the complete picture.