3 ms·

I'm not disagreeing - but I think it's worth pointing out that an employee on $40K actually costs the company a lot more ( can be as much as > 2x ) - not just e

I'm not disagreeing - but I think it's worth pointing out that an employee on $40K actually costs the company a lot more ( can be as much as > 2x ) - not just employers tax, pensions contributions etc, but also the cost of factory/lab/office space and equipment and consumables[1]. [1] Assuming the consultants aren't also in the office with a desk etc

pclmulqdq 2y ago
$40k is a tiny salary, too. Taxes, facilities, and benefits are going to be more than 2x that. A contractor paid $200k/year is likely cheaper in total cost than an employee paid $100k/year.
moduspol 2y ago
Employee headcount is also evaluated less favorably when potential investors evaluate the company's health. They're implicitly seen as a promise to continue paying them in the future, whether that's materially different from what the company does with contractors or not. And some of that is probably fair. As an employee, a layoff of a bunch of employees is a lot more troubling than a bunch of contractors not having their contracts renewed.