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