Forum Post: Employers POV (ie. the "cost" of hiring)
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 8:23 p.m. EST by greentara
(78)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
So a business probably needs an additional $150,000 in sales to justify hiring a $15/hour employee. Why? Well, first the margins in most business might be 30% (retail is 50% on the product, but subtract rent, utilities, insurance, cleaning, repairs). So the $150,000 in sales would generate $45,000 in gross profit. Buy hey, $15/hour for 2000 hours is only $30k, so the employer is getting "rich". HOLD ON! the total cost to employ that person is closer to $21.50/hour, so the profits might only be $5,000. So think about how much you can increase sales for a prospective employee before you feel you "deserve" a job And here is the link to the cost of employment: http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-much-does-it-cost-to-employ-you.html sorry guys, i wish it were not so, but it is
Well, that really depends on the business. In a trade business, the employee needs to output around their salary to be worthwhile. (For those of you about to explain how the employee's cost includes overhead, and so much more, lets see how good you are at picking up large, bulky things by yourself..... ) After a period of training, one expects a small roi, but not a large one, at least in small trade businesses
i understand cost accounting (and looks like you do to). but this post was for the guy who doesnt understand why someone will not hire them for $20/hour. As for the trades (which ive done small scale) you can hire a guy for $20/hour and bill his $20/hour to the customer, but you have a profit margin in the job, so this guy is helping maintain the margin, and thus valuable to you
any "living wage" proponents care to respond?
i hope some people read this instead of just asking for a "living" wage
Hey you just made the argument that in order for business to hire, there must be demand for their products...their sales must go up and if they do they will start hiring ...so since consumers aren't spending the only way to create demand is for the Governent to SPEND(yes I said it) and do things like repair our infrastructure, modernize our power grid, develope alternative energy all of which will get people hired and lower the unemployment rate which will increase consumer confidence then they start spending and more people get hired which means more people paying taxes which helps reduce our deficit. Sounds simple to me..if y'all can't figure it out, just ask William Jefferson Clinton..27 million jobs plus 1 blow job created while he was President. Unfortunately all most people remember is the blow job!!
you mean like how LA spent $111 million to create 55 jobs?
http://www.i360gov.com/local-government-news/2010/sep/17/ca-la-agencies-got-111m-stimulus-created-few-jobs
and the cynical people say, well if you want a job, go out and hussle to bring in the revenue in order to get paid
well...the government has spent about $1T more since 07 and its not working. I would agree, the $1T could be spent better.
The CBO.. says the Stimulus Package saved or created 2 to 3 million jobs...remember it was 740 billion with about a 3rd going to tax cuts for business, a 3rd going to states to prevent teacher cop and firefighter layoffs and a 3rd going to actual projects for infrastructure. I agree that it could have been spent wiser but Obama was and keeps trying to win over the Rebumblecans who will never ever vote for him anyway! It all should have gone directly to keeping or creating jobs.
geeze...please do some math...there were a few rounds of stimulus (bush and obama, as were bashing both parties here) and even with your numbers of 740b for 3mm jobs, thats 250k/job!!!! wtf?? furthermore, obama had both senate and house under his party's control for awhile, how did that turn out?