3 ms·
You do need to take all the support costs for staff into account. Buildings, network capacity, hr staff, managers, software licenses, hardware, benefits, fica/e
by grogenaut 4y ago
You do need to take all the support costs for staff into account. Buildings, network capacity, hr staff, managers, software licenses, hardware, benefits, fica/etc. It's not unreasonable to assume 30% extra for every head than their salary.
Also most of those folks on levels also get compensated with stock or equity, so it's more than base. Going private means that goes away and their comp also gets slashed. Is he going to take it back public, what beyond base does twitter offer as comp.
- mikeyouse 4y agoYeah as a reference - I do a lot of this type of planning for non-equity employees and our number is 37% right now (site costs + US payroll taxes & benefits + hardware + incidentals).
- andrewstuart2 4y agoThanks for the reference. I've heard numbers thrown out but never anything asserted as an actual researched number.
- mikeyouse 4y agoYeah the org I work with has an interesting setup where the employees are employed by the parent organization and then we have dozens of projects as legal entities but no staff on their books. So to calibrate the passthrough cost that we charge those projects, we do a big analysis every quarter of all of our expenses for tax, 401k matching, 'staff development', non-capital hardware purchases, health/dental/vision, life insurance, etc. etc. So it's a pretty robust number. For highly paid employees over ~$200k, it's probably more like 34% since a bunch of that stuff doesn't scale with salary, but lower employees are closer to 40% so the blended rate covers a "typical" company.
- andrewstuart2 4y agoAh, fair, good point. 30% is what I've heard as well, but I did forget about that when commenting. I do still think that 300k is pretty generous even for engineers, which won't be the entirety of the cuts and so the average would be lower.