High or low wing?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:6RJnc.62886$Ik.4785128@attbi_s53...
Run a nicely profitable $60 million company and that income would not be
out
of line. :~)
Keep it profitable in hard times and a higher number is certainly
justified.

Agreed -- but, remember, George was referring to MIDDLE level managers
making that kind of money.

Our middle managers make $75-100K, plus bonus of about 20%.

They're not running nuthin'...and there isn't a mid-level manager in the
world that is worth what my General Practioner makes.

I suspect your GP makes a lot more, but has rather high expenses in
operating his practice.

Also, if I recall, George was in the telecommunications industry. With
the
increased competition in that field, the profit margins are way down.

Given they had to write off major infrastructure costs a few years back
(wasn't George referring to 2002?) their profit margins are probably damn
near zero.

I got laid off from the telecomm industry (Satellite Communications) in
2000. In a nineteen month period our company stock went from $13 a share to
$103, then down to the penny stocks...then Chapter 7. The company had been
in business since 1981.

Company I'm with now (again) will do about (we project) $68M in revenue from
eleven companies accross four lines of business. We think we will have a net
return about $12M to the five partners/owners. Each company has it's own
manager, whom is our employee as a middle manager.

All in all, in the heyday of theTelecom industry, I'm sure $150-250K was not
out of line. It was not such salaries that killed the companies, but the
gearing up in infrastructure for the internet (at the demand of the FCC)
that didn't materialize.








--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Agreed -- but, remember, George was referring to MIDDLE level managers
making that kind of money.

Yes. Our structure was that up to 15 people or so would be managed by a "Director".
Directors were managed by "Executive Directors". Executive Directors would be under
"Vice Presidents", with the CEO on top of the heap. Director salaries tended to start
about $80K and top out about $125K. Executive Directors started about $100K and might
possibly reach $190K. I was not made aware of the salaries of the CEO or AVPs. There
were also bonuses which were based on product sales ("performance-based pay", it was
called). If the product for which an ED was responsible did well that year, that ED's
salary could well be over $250K, even if the rest of the company was in dire
straights. That, of course, led to near-warfare between EDs as the situation
degenerated.

Also, if I recall, George was in the telecommunications industry. With the
increased competition in that field, the profit margins are way down.

Actually, with the exception of wireless, the competition wasn't a big factor. The
dotcom crash reduced demand for land-based equipment, including lines, servers,
multiplexing equipment, fiber, etc.. Suddenly the companies went from scrambling to
install more plant to having a surplus. Since much of our work was producing programs
to help companies efficiently plan for expansion, demand for our products took a
nosedive. We could've handled reduced profit margins, but when sales drop by 75% or
more, people have to go.

In the wireless technology field, however, competition was a big factor, and it is as
Jay stated. Sales were not good there, mainly because our owners factored an
exorbitant profit into the cost.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

Remember, too, that doctors are mostly self-employed, so those numbers are
NET PROFIT (after paying BIG insurance costs, staff, rent,
this-that-and-the-other costs). In Gross income, it's probably more like a
couple million $$$.

You sure about that? I thought the march of managed care had caused
nearly all the private practices to go out of business.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

You sure about that? I thought the march of managed care had caused
nearly all the private practices to go out of business.

Not from what I've read; in fact, I heard recently of a move on the part of some
physicians to refuse to accept insurance. The claim is that insurance companies pay
out an average of 60% of the actual fees submitted, and the paperwork is complex
enough to required at least one extra bookkeeper-type person per physician. A GP who
accepts no insurance claims can charge half what the competition charges and make out
like a bandit. I think that was on NPR.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

You sure about that? I thought the march of managed care had caused
nearly all the private practices to go out of business.

Not from what I've read; in fact, I heard recently of a move on the part
of some
physicians to refuse to accept insurance. The claim is that insurance
companies pay
out an average of 60% of the actual fees submitted, and the paperwork is
complex
enough to required at least one extra bookkeeper-type person per
physician. A GP who
accepts no insurance claims can charge half what the competition charges
and make out
like a bandit. I think that was on NPR.

That sounds more like Medicare/Medicaid than PPO insurance situations.

Jay Honeck wrote:
Various resources on the 'net list a physician's average income as

ranging

anywhere from $129K to $255K annually.

That makes it about the same as mid-level managers at my former place of

employment.

Perhaps this is why they are no longer employing so many people?

When a business is paying mid-level managers what a physician averages in
salary, something is seriously amiss. Unless the company is making gold, or
selling crack, their profit margins aren't going to support such a salary
structure for long.

It probably varies in different parts of the country, but 129K is a
middle-of-middle class income for a lot of urban areas. In fact, a family
would probably struggle a fair bit with a single 129K/year income in areas
around NY/NJ, Boston/Cambridge, Seattle, San Francisco/San Jose, or Los
Angeles -- you're going to have to pay your senior managers more than that
if you want to keep them.

I'm not say that there are not a lot of people less well off who'd give
anything to make 129K/year -- and in Canada, where things are cheaper, that
still translates into a respectable almost-upper-middle-class salary in
Canadian dollars -- but for the better-off parts of the U.S., I don't think
129K/year really counts as "upper middle class", much less "rich". Many
years ago, doctors' incomes put them fairly high up the social scale; now
they're behind most other professions.


All the best,


David

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:GbBnc.16279$z06.2757697@attbi_s01...
That must have been before universal health care (in most rich
countries)
and HMOs + sky-high malpractice insurance premiums (in the U.S.).

Various resources on the 'net list a physician's average income as ranging
anywhere from $129K to $255K annually.

A physician in general/family practice?

How about surgeons or specialists (I know OB/GYN practitioners make a lot
but pay a mint in insurance).

I think they can probably eke a Bonanza or Cirrus payment out of that each
month.

They don't say, "Hey, it ain't brain surgery!" for nuthin'.

I think they can probably eke a Bonanza or Cirrus payment out of that each
month.

That's why the surgeons say " A hysterectomy a day keeps the boat on the bay."