We probably need to start a new topic since this seems to have changed to "how much can I charge?" or "how do rates affect how much I can make?"
If you are looking at this from the standpoint of an independant consultant, it gets complicated.
I will be happy to write a post on how you figure out what you have to charge and what you can probably charge, and how to figure out what you would probably make.
When people look at an hourly rate that is being charged, they get the impression that is income for the examiner, but it is actually income for the business. What the examiner makes is not connected to the hourly rate directly.
Larry ) , with all due respect, I have a vague idea of how a business is run, on how to make a budget, a business plan and more generally how to manage both an individual consulting business and/or a (small) company.
The original blog post was IMHO comparing peas with watermelons (as said).
The hourly rate you can charge (in the sense of what you can ask for and - usually be actually given) is determined by the market (and nothing else).
The rates of pay originally posted are the maximum amount that an UK judge can give you (you can have much less than that but in NO way more than that).
The hourly rate you need to charge (to live) are by definition "whatever - once multiplied for the number of hours that you can actually bill - is enough to cover expenses, pay taxes and provide a "reasonable" way of living to yourself and your family).
This latter aspect make the unit value meaningless metrics if you don't have the quantity you multiply it by to get "total amounts".
On the other hand the hourly rate of an employee is given by "total amount" divided by hours of work.
What the original blog post made was a comparison between non-comparable items, the idea is (was) to find a "reasonably simple" way to make a "reasonably sound" comparison, not to make a "guide on how to run your business", which BTW would involve a whole set of technicalities about Laws and taxation in different countries.
Concepts such as "gross income", "expenses", "taxes" and "yearly net income needed to provide you and your family a reasonable way of life" are general enough to be used in simplified (and obviously approximated) formulas, that of course anyone should adapt to his/her country/situation.
jaclaz
Agreed
The original blog post was IMHO comparing peas with watermelons (as said).
jaclaz
How amazing that such a thread can induce such invective conversation. I love it. lol
You go for it jaclaz.
FYI, My response was not directed at anyone in particular, but to anyone who would like to have more information about budgeting and cost analysis.
It is easy to forget that there are people new to many concepts who can benefit from information being shared.
You're right, Larry, and I agree. Highlighting for those who do not have a greater understanding of fees in this area is what this discussion thread is about.
—–
If one reads the varying replies in this thread it can be seen from one point that comes out of them is that public sector pay generally appears between £15.00 to £20.00 per hour. However, that is at the lower end of public salaries.
Which Police force pays £35 per hour? I knew the Met had ample budgets, but I didn't realise they were THAT ample.
AFAIK most forces pay between £15 and £20 per hour, with some misers paying less than £10 per hour.
What is highlighted is that the public sector earn more than the minimum wage of £6.00-£8.50p/h. It seems strange then that public sector management and civil servants are still earning even more than expert specialists in their fields. I do not see any one of these public sector / civil servant figures running to the newspapers telling them how embarassed (and apologising) they are at what they earn and asking for a salary reduction to fit in with everyone else. Mind you, I wouldn't naturally think, expect or ask them to do that. I have no objection to what another man or woman wants to or can earn. I do have an objection when s/he or they enter into a false state of affairs to hold me or others back. We all go to work to maintain a standard of living. Some have a standard of living higher than others. But a level of standard of living should be set and attained by you and not by someone else who says you can only earn this amount, but don't ask what I am up to (monetary-wise) on public money. That must equally apply to politicians.
I am failing to see invective conversation 😯 .
However, let us re-connect to the mentioned thread
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=9703/
In there we have "market proof" that the UK Police is willing to pay a (qualified but still a) "kid", in London (exactly)
27,404.14+2,245=29,649.14 a year. (plus a few benefits)
the 365-28-2*52=233-afew national holidays leaves the initial 220 daya/year substantially correct.
220*8=1760 hours year.
Does it mean that the candidate that got the job will work for approximately 29,649.14/1760=15,05 £/h?
How does this number compare with the "minimum wage" of £6.00-£8.50p/h?
Is this already net of income tax or still "before taxes"?
In any case that should be a good example of "entry level" job.
Casually we have another item of "market reality", the "Senior Consulate" ad
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=9794/
on which *someone* has already (and repeatedly roll ) remarked how the higher end of the fork between £ 88,000 and 112,000 is not "good enough" and a nice, round £ 135,000 would sound "better", but that should anyway represent the "top" of a pay for an employee (I am assuming that a Consulate will need to work some more hours).
88,000/2000= £ 44.00/h
112,000/2000=£ 56.00/h
135,000/2000=£ 67.50/h
Are the above assumptions (being these the two extremes of the range of pay as an employee) correct?
jaclaz
I am failing to see invective conversation 😯 .
*someone* has already (and repeatedly roll ) remarked how the higher end of the fork between £ 88,000 and 112,000 is not "good enough" and a nice, round £ 135,000
I do not see your reasoning for the use of the innuendo or the cartoon rolling eyes communicating that somehow you are personally put out or somehow words have gotten on the better of you.
The reason I raised the bar to £135,000.00 was not, as you put it, 'not "good enough" and a nice, round' but to see if the proposed salary range was fixed or would the company pay more for more skills that the person brought to the job or make allowances for other types of benefit (e.g. company car etc). It is a positive negotiating tool many senior managers and directors use quite regularly.
Out of curiousty, do you have a problem with asking to be paid more than a quoted amount that may actually work out less if you accepted the quoted amount on face value?
I do not see your reasoning for the use of the innuendo or the cartoon rolling eyes communicating that somehow you are personally put out or somehow words have gotten on the better of you.
Oww, come on ) , evidently by mistake you posted 4 times on that thread the same post, that's all.
The reason I raised the bar to £135,000.00 was not, as you put it, 'not "good enough" and a nice, round' but to see if the proposed salary range was fixed or would the company pay more for more skills that the person brought to the job or make allowances for other types of benefit (e.g. company car etc). It is a positive negotiating tool many senior managers and directors use quite regularly.
If you want I will gladly take back the "nice, round", but in my simplicity, when someone asks for more it means that he/she finds whatever is offered "not good enough" and expects to be able to get more, the fact that it can be called allright "positive negotiation tool" and that is often used by senior managers and directors regularly, doesn't change the essence of it.
Out of curiousty, do you have a problem with asking to be paid more than a quoted amount that may actually work out less if you accepted the quoted amount on face value?
Of course not, but I do that because and when - at the root - I value my work more than what is offered as face value.
I mean, let's say that the offer was for a UK 200,000.00 £ a year + a new Mercedes, would you still have thrown in a 20% raise?
And if it was for UK 500,000.00 £ a year + a new (say) Aston Martin?
jaclaz
I do not see your reasoning for the use of the innuendo or the cartoon rolling eyes communicating that somehow you are personally put out or somehow words have gotten on the better of you.
Oww, come on ) , evidently by mistake you posted 4 times on that thread the same post, that's all.
jaclaz
I do not even recollect posting the same post four times. I have deleted three of the four posts but the original questions I raised remain. Thank you anyway for letting me know, appreciated. I confirm I did not desire or intend to make an innuendo. I was genuinely interested to see the responses from the OP.
If you want I will gladly take back the "nice, round", but in my simplicity, when someone asks for more it means that he/she finds whatever is offered "not good enough" and expects to be able to get more, the fact that it can be called allright "positive negotiation tool" and that is often used by senior managers and directors regularly, doesn't change the essence of it.
jaclaz
Jaclaz, it is not about getting more in the way you are portraying this matter. It is about, is the salary and job offered been clearly define? We have dealt with this earlier based upon ads placed here at FF. If the person sees an employed job advertised at £30,000.00 and at interview discovers that the potential employee must provide e.g. their own mobile phone and use their own car for running around the country and the potential employer expects the potential employee to pay for the running costs, who is actually asking for more? Is it the potential employer looking to offset natural company expenditure and shift those costs onto the employee or is it the employee being intimidated to not stand up and say "hang on a minute, the salary offered really equates to £18,000.00 after running costs and that is before I have even been paid for my skillsets"? Are you saying you see my skillsets as only worth £18K? Obviously, the potential employee has got to seek those running costs over and above the salary offered just to enjoy the offered salary that the company felt happy to extend in an advertisement in the first place.
I therefore do not agree with your proposition that in seeking fairness it is somehow seeking more than the person is entitled or that there is some form of underlying greed.
I was genuinely interested to see the responses from the OP.
I have no doubts about your genuine interest, rest assured ) .
Jaclaz, it is not about getting more in the way you are portraying this matter. It is about, is the salary and job offered been clearly define? We have dealt with this earlier based upon ads placed here at FF. If the person sees an employed job advertised at £30,000.00 and at interview discovers that the potential employee must provide e.g. their own mobile phone and use their own car for running around the country and the potential employer expects the potential employee to pay for the running costs, who is actually asking for more? Is it the potential employer looking to offset natural company expenditure and shift those costs onto the employee or is it the employee being intimidated to not stand up and say "hang on a minute, the salary offered really equates to £18,000.00 after running costs and that is before I have even been paid for my skillsets"? Are you saying you see my skillsets as only worth £18K? Obviously, the potential employee has got to seek those running costs over and above the salary offered just to enjoy the offered salary that the company felt happy to extend in an advertisement in the first place.
I therefore do not agree with your proposition that in seeking fairness it is somehow seeking more than the person is entitled or that there is some form of underlying greed.
I never said that seeking fairness means there is an underlying greed, and definitely NOT - specifically - that you were in any way greedy in your request, but I insist, I read that thread as following
- an ad is made for a "high level" Forensic Expert and the people making the ad is advertising a pay between £88,000 and £102,000
- you posted how - for your experience - a pay of around £135,000 would probably be more suited
- you can call this "positive negotiation", "counter offer", "proposal", or whatever else, but ultimately it means that if Mr. Johnson would agree to give you £135,000 for that job (besides clarifying fringe benefits, etc.) you would be satisfied (you cannot realistically expect that Mr. Johnson would offer you more than what you asked for)
[/listo]
this makes £135,000 the "higher end" of the range, for the purpose of the related post, nothing more, nothing less.
If you hadn't posted, I would have used the £ 112,000 in the post as representative of the "higher end".
Being picky (as I actually am) I wouldn't however expect a reply on a public forum by someone that posts initially
Due to the high volume of applications received, if you do not hear from us within 7 working days, I am afraid your application has been unsuccessful.
as a "standard" formula in all his/their recruitment ads, particularly for one requiring "top skills" and definitely not before a few days have passed since the original ad.
I mean, if you ALREADY received so many applications, WHY are you asking here for more?
But that's most probably just me.
jaclaz