It does cost employers approx. twice an employee's salary to employ. There
are other costs though that I don't believe you have taken into account.
1. Administration - Execs, secretaries, and accounting do not come for free
2. Down Time - While you accounted for benefits, I don't believe that you
accounted for time when maybe there is only 30 hours of work available for
an employee guaranteed 40 hours.
3. Training Costs - Besides adding to down time, training costs money in
other ways.
4. Profit - A company needs to make profit. If it does not, it cannot grow
and it cannot weather bumps in the economy.
I agree though, more than $125/hr is close to scalping. Either they are
scalping, or they are paying their employees (consultants and/or execs) to
much money.
Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr.
At 08:07 AM 3/5/2002 -0700, Derek wrote:
>Just in case no one has done the math
>
>60,000 / 2080 (hours) = 28.85
>
>Now of course there are things like a normal employers benefits (and their
>tax contribution to factor in) So say you figure in 10,000 for benefits
>and lump 10% for tax contribution and you are at 77,000 a year add another
>10% for office supplies space etc... and you are at 84,000.
>
>The other way is when you hire someone you figure 30% of salary will be
>needed so if the salary is 60,000 72,000 would be the outcome so the above
>of 84,000 is pretty high.
>
>84,000 / 2080 (hours) = 40.38
>
>So I am curious to those that give consultants a bad name buy wanting 100
>plus an hour. Do you really think that 60,000 is paltry salary, or do you
>expect companies to burden your time without work?
>
>Based on these numbers anything more than 80 an hour is HIGHWAY robbery.
>As you would only be working half a year to earn 60,000 or if working a
>full year making 120,000 with full benefits etc included in the
>calculation. I just ask that you re-evaluate bagging on 'the microsoft
>tax' if you are charging more than 80 an hour and ask are you charging
>'the consultant tax'?
>
>;)
>
>-Derek
(text/plain)