21–30 of 453 posts
If you are already spending >$200K per employee, spending another $10K to make them even 10% more productive is a bargain.
Then what happens is somebody making $100+/hour would spend several hours to do the job that would be covered by a tool that costs under $50/month.
And after the consumer market even SaaS software is getting to a saturation point.
Time for a "manage your SaaS subscriptions" SaaS. (I'm fairly sure this exists, actually.)
Lots of the SaaS products we use mean we don't have to hire more employees. So I'm not sure if dollars per employee is a meaningful stat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most enterprises don't spend >200k an employee. Do people really believe that is a normal salary?
Fully loaded costs (health benefits, 401k matching, cost of computer, HR business partners, etc.) for an employee are roughly 2x what their salary is. So yeah, 200k is a good estimate.
If you are already spending >$200K per employee, spending another $10K to make them even 10% more productive is a bargain.
Most enterprises don't spend >200k an employee. Do people really believe that is a normal salary?
"The fully-loaded costs of employees are much higher than their salary: exactly how much higher depends on your locality’s laws, your benefits package, and a bunch of other HR administrivia, but a reasonable guesstimate is between 150% and 200% of their salary." -https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
If you are already spending >$200K per employee, spending another $10K to make them even 10% more productive is a bargain.
Most enterprises don't spend >200k an employee. Do people really believe that is a normal salary?
But even so, the average salary in the US is Companies are spending far less than $200k/employee all-in.
So to slightly rephrase the OP's question:
> Do people really believe that $100k is a normal salary?
If Slack is going to round out at $100/a/staff member ... then how on earth does that number creep to $10K?
I think there might be some 'crossing of streams' in this data, for example, perhaps they're including general services like AWS in there, which I'm not sure makes sense because conflating product-related IT charges with other services isn't helpful. Also relevant is the fact that said AWS product or IT charges would be borne anyhow.
I think dividing between 'productivity/IT' kind of spending, and product-related services would reallly help, also, comparing that $10K to historical, non-SaaS numbers would help as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most enterprises don't spend >200k an employee. Do people really believe that is a normal salary?
I don't know about most enterprises but I'm guessing any given cost per employee includes a lot more than salary.