Hacker News Reader

Comment by anon330 | Hacker News Reader

I'm employee #1 at a Canadian startup, and they get by paying me about 3300 per month, before tax. Based on my asking-around, this doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary for the area.

View on HN

That's only one portion of the costs. Besides the associated taxes and insurance they have to pay rent/utilities, purchase equipment, etc etc. The quoted figure was total expenses / employees, not employee compensation.

Correct - the term used is "fully burdened cost per employee". The general rule of thumb is to multiply salary by 1.25 - 1.5.

The figure I've heard is 1.25-1.5x base salary.

That sounds right for direct staffing costs (health insurance isn't cheap!), but low if you mean counting in all the other stuff. I suppose it depends on the business--someone like Dropbox spends a lot more on servers than say Groupon.

Right, that's for the incremental cost of each employee: taxes, benefits, equipment (for the individuals, not servers), office space. It's useful for calculating how much a new employee will cost you.

I've always used a rule-of-thumb of a 100% overhead rate for employees - it's a spectacularly easy number to work with mentally, and its right to well within acceptable error bounds an awful lot of the time.

If I'm paying you $90k, I'll expect to incur an additional $90k in costs resulting from employing you.

Server costs will continue to decrease, whereas salespeople will continue to demand more (we aren't going to lower the minimum-wage).

Not sure where you are in Canada but I know thats pretty damn low for big cities like Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal.

Depends on what you're doing there. But yes, cost per head is not 100% compensation. If you've got multiple employees @ a start-up making $180,000 per year there's an issue.

//Now, if they've re-mortgaged their house and are eating $180k per annum in equity / stock instead of salary, then it could be an almost-fair-number.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com