7 ms·
8 x $125K would be $1M, not the $2M that is currently being spent on employees. Edit: Missed the first part of that, I apologise. 100% overhead doesn't seem re
by unfunco 10y ago
8 x $125K would be $1M, not the $2M that is currently being spent on employees.
Edit: Missed the first part of that, I apologise. 100% overhead doesn't seem reasonable per employee to me though.
- klinskyc 10y agoit's (8125k) 2 since there is 100% overhead
- ddispaltro 10y agoHe said 100% overhead on top of salary
- cjbprime 10y agoYou missed the "100% salary overhead" part of the sentence. Consider taxes, benefits, insurance, other non-salary costs to employing people.
- jimktrains2 10y agoYou missed the 100% overhead. Even 50% overhead at a slightly higher salary wouldn't be surprising.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]