(08-15-2022 02:10 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  So we can agree that it's not close to 1 million to hire each person and that retaining them is different story.

so after misrepresenting what i said... calling me a liar... and then making up an already disproven claim, you want us to 'agree' on something??

and no... you can't count their years of salaries being paid and not talk about 'retaining' them. Obviously paying for them beyond year one is part of 'retaining' them... and you have no idea what salaries are being replaced, so we don't know at all what it costs per year... or in total.

All I can give you is a reasonable guess at the ADDITIONAL salaries being paid in, and that I estimate to be at 150k per year... so if I had to guess, I'd say the total salaries are about 225k/yr. The average number of years is probably around 4 (since it's 15% annual growth, which means the number increases every year)... and 225k x 4 is CLOSE to $1mm/yr.

So no, I'm not willing to concede my initial comment that it costs almost $1mm per employee. That's what I said and I stand by it. I did not say that is how much it cost to hire them, did I.

Post 1270, YOU Lied and claimed I said 'it costs 1mm to hire an employee'.
Post 1266... i said 'So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? '.

Do you see the words 'to hire' in my comment?

Post 1273, in response to YOUR ARTICLE claiming it would cost 80mm TO HIRE 87,000 people, I followed YOU and YOUR ARTICLE down that rabbit trail.

Simple math, rounding... 80mm/87,000 = almost $1mm per employee.
more complex math, PV'ing the actual number of years and the timing of each hire... plus the existing salaries being absorbed... you STILL come up with around $1mm to hire and retain them... so it's NOT 'something else'.