That’s how my VP told me. Sounds right?
10 replies (most recent on top)
$1B over how many years?
Based on US cost structure, $1B will be around 4000 employees. News said that mostly from SG&A, 5G R&D. SG&A stands for Selling, General and Admin.
Agree to @2cyn. I believe same goes for BCOM merge. so 3b means 6-7000. and Majority of those would come from CorpR&D, BT, WLAN, QTL, Server, RFFE and overwrap from sales, marketing, staffing as BCOM doesn't need those obviously. impact on other BU might not be huge
No, average cost per employee is around 400k that includes all the benefits, insurance QCOM has for them. The top 10% cost the company upwards of 750k. So, you are looking at 2,500 layoffs if layoffs are the only way to reduce cost. 2,000 is more realistic.
A more realistic calculation is as follows. Average total employee cost is more like $200K when you factor in everything, including office space, taxes and benefits. Qualcomm has low capital requirements because it's fabless, so let's say 75% of the $1 billion is labor.
Then $750e6/200e3 = 3750 heads. Most of this will be from San Diego, very little from India, and the rest other US sites. I think Korra, Europe, etc will have little impact.
That’s 1bn total, comprised of reducing 5g setup costs (because the company has already done that), cutting none profitable projects, then 2-300m SG&A.
Simply taking the figure and assuming it’s all labour related makes no sense whatsoever
@1dga You forget that not every Q employee works in SD.
Everybody is focused on cutting costs to improve the bottom line....we all need to get together and focus on growing the top line (revenue, sales,etc.) c’mon guys! We can do it! One team! One dream!
Go Qualcomm! We are number 1...!!!!
No. Does not sound right.
In addition to basic salary, employee cost takes into account the benefits, office space, paid vacation, etc. This averages over $150k per employee
Funny, your VP apparently made the same calculation I did - assuming a $100k average salary. In that case, a $1B saving would imply a 35% cut.
HOWEVER, that is assuming that the savings will be achieved only by layoffs and that people of all salary levels are affected in the same way. Neither is true. There are other saving opportunities beyond just laying people off. Also, the layoffs could target higher salary levels.
However, it is clear that a $1B reduction will definitely imply some serious headcount reductions. I think 20% is more realistic, but even that is huge.