3 ms·
Remember, the cost to the employer is roughly double the employee's salary, therefore the $250,000 per annum cost means the employee salary is $125,000 per annu
by shard 8y ago
Remember, the cost to the employer is roughly double the employee's salary, therefore the $250,000 per annum cost means the employee salary is $125,000 per annum. Not exactly top dollar.
- rhymenoceros 8y agoWhere did you get an 100% overhead for an employer? I've done back-of-the-envelope estimates before and have come nowhere near that. At best, it's somewhere between 15-25% depending on employer 401(k)/etc matching, deferred comp, and office space pricing. The worst I could find is 40% - http://web.mit.edu/e-club/hadzima/how-much-does-an-employee-cost.html http://web.mit.edu/e-club/hadzima/how-much-does-an-employee-... - and that uses a much different cost basis (not $125k). Where in the world did you come up with that number?
- shard 8y agoSure, everyone has a different number. For example, in the article you linked to, there is this metric: "the fully functioning managed employee costs about 2.7 times the base salary".
- vonmoltke 8y agoThe person I was replying to specifically said "pay to an engineer". That is not the fully-loaded cost.
- shard 8y agoThe person he was replying to was talking about cost to design the chip, which would imply employer costs. The error has to stop somewhere.