7 ms·

I’m not sure of numbers but I’d imagine a 70k salary would mean higher than purely salary costs (depending on company industry etc) after other expenses

brianwawok 7y ago
What? Are you including a large private office in costs? Obviously there is a cost past salary but it’s not over 100%
- hnuser355 7y ago
  To be honest, my number was based on my rembering of opinions from people who were in management but were certainly not experts on HR budgets or something. So it could be very wrong
  - brianwawok 7y ago
    It’s the right idea but a bit inflated :) 100k total cost for someone making 70k may be a better starting spot for a guess.
- mgkimsal 7y ago
  correct. in the US, there will be an extra ~10% above that for FICA/unemployment. The company will probably shell out another ~$12k for health insurance (I'm speaking averages here - I know some companies are very generous, and others aren't). Factor in some x% salary matching in to a 401k - say another 5%, and perhaps some other perks. Let's say there's another ~$20k on top of the $70k - that $70k employee may cost the company $95k. If you then want to apportion office/equipment costs, you can do that too, but that $70k employee is not costing $140k (unless, perhaps, they're being very generous with some shares and there's a cost associated with that, and perhaps tuition reimbursement, company car and some other perks on top of what was mentioned above... maybe). Those sorts of things aren't generally given to someone in the US making $70k.
  - brianwawok 7y ago
    I know how the works. I own a business. The 130% above salary number doesn’t math out.
    - mgkimsal 7y ago
      sure - wasn't trying to correct you, just to add on in the same vein as you were posting, that's all.
csa 7y ago
Probably more like 90k-110k. Typical burdened labor rate is 1.3x to 1.5x of annual salary. Exceptions exist, but usually it’s clear why that’s the exception (e.g., exceptionally generous benefits for a competitve labor category, local laws, etc.).
- hnuser355 7y ago
  Thanks for your post, I’ve removed the numbers from mine as it appears they were likely quite inaccurate

brianwawok 7y ago

What? Are you including a large private office in costs? Obviously there is a cost past salary but it’s not over 100%

hnuser355 7y ago
To be honest, my number was based on my rembering of opinions from people who were in management but were certainly not experts on HR budgets or something. So it could be very wrong
- brianwawok 7y ago
  It’s the right idea but a bit inflated :) 100k total cost for someone making 70k may be a better starting spot for a guess.
mgkimsal 7y ago
correct. in the US, there will be an extra ~10% above that for FICA/unemployment. The company will probably shell out another ~$12k for health insurance (I'm speaking averages here - I know some companies are very generous, and others aren't). Factor in some x% salary matching in to a 401k - say another 5%, and perhaps some other perks. Let's say there's another ~$20k on top of the $70k - that $70k employee may cost the company $95k. If you then want to apportion office/equipment costs, you can do that too, but that $70k employee is not costing $140k (unless, perhaps, they're being very generous with some shares and there's a cost associated with that, and perhaps tuition reimbursement, company car and some other perks on top of what was mentioned above... maybe). Those sorts of things aren't generally given to someone in the US making $70k.
- brianwawok 7y ago
  I know how the works. I own a business. The 130% above salary number doesn’t math out.
  - mgkimsal 7y ago
    sure - wasn't trying to correct you, just to add on in the same vein as you were posting, that's all.

csa 7y ago

Probably more like 90k-110k. Typical burdened labor rate is 1.3x to 1.5x of annual salary. Exceptions exist, but usually it’s clear why that’s the exception (e.g., exceptionally generous benefits for a competitve labor category, local laws, etc.).

hnuser355 7y ago
Thanks for your post, I’ve removed the numbers from mine as it appears they were likely quite inaccurate