I'm the same way and prefer to work more than hire. I can usually keep up but lately have been struggling having any flexibility to do anything but this. Im wondering if it is just me though because I get bogged down during the day with obligations in our other business. Im trying to figure out if I hired someone could they keep up with no help or is it not enough to keep them busy. Sounds stupid I know. No significant growth plans are on the radar either.That's a good question...not sure I can help you out from a revenue standpoint...What is your current workload/backlog? I mean, if you're working 90 hrs a week just to stay on top, then by all means, spend the money to hire. Other consideration: how big do you want to get? Are you wanting to add additional services? In short, I would prefer to be super busy then hire, rather than hire, then try to keep the person busy. Revenue never played a part in our hiring; only backlog size.
Wow, that's highly inefficient, we are at 1.4 with 6 total including two owners and only 3 are in production. We can probably handle twice that if we make some software/equipment changes.100k per ur per employee gross. Each employee should be able handle that number. Obviously it could be plus/minus. So if you are grossing 400 per yr. it should take around 4 employees to handle that
Wow, that's highly inefficient, we are at 1.4 with 6 total including two owners and only 3 are in production. We can probably handle twice that if we make some software/equipment changes.
These numbers are more realistic for this type of industry.Are you asking monthly or yearly? I think it used to be $30k/mo sales per employee....a 5 man shop should be at $150k/month. Right now we are about that, but with 3 people (production/design combined) and customer service person. We are severely shorthanded and need a production person. And this is 95% in-house. We are slammed.
Yes, this formula, and has been common for 20+ years.100k per ur per employee gross. Each employee should be able handle that number. Obviously it could be plus/minus. So if you are grossing 400 per yr. it should take around 4 employees to handle that
I don't think equippaint can reply, looks like he has been banned.
I don't think that's correct at all. So to do $1 million you need 10 people? No. We will hit 1.2 probably, with 5 people here (6 for the first 5 months of the year.)"100k per ur per employee gross."Yes, this formula, and has been common for 20+ years.
No wonder why businesses fold up so often... $100k per person, I would just go work for someone else... That would be a cakewalk all day.I don't think that's correct at all. So to do $1 million you need 10 people? No. We will hit 1.2 probably, with 5 people here (6 for the first 5 months of the year.)
You may not need 10 people to make $1 million but it’s still a rule of thumb and has been for a long time because wages have not changed enough to affect the ratio. It’s easy to find citation of the rule for small business via Google.I don't think that's correct at all. So to do $1 million you need 10 people? No. We will hit 1.2 probably, with 5 people here (6 for the first 5 months of the year.)