Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.advocacy > #137602

Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/10/2025 20:23, -hh wrote:
> On 10/9/25 07:21, Tom Elam wrote:
>> On 10/7/2025 11:12 AM, -hh wrote:
>>> On 10/7/25 04:31, David B. wrote:
>>>> On 06/10/2025 22:07, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Nothing sad about the need to update my Windows laptop, That was a 
>>>>> 6 figure project completed to the clients satisfaction.
>>>>
>>>> Did you do work for someone and generate payment of $100,000+? 
>>>
>>> That's what he'd like to believe, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Of course, "six digits" could also have been #1,234.56
>>>
>>> Plus even if it was $100K, over what period of time?  It is far less 
>>> impressive if it was for a project which spanned over 3-4 years.
>>>
>>> Similarly, with what non-labor expenses:  when it includes travel, 
>>> such as to inspect manufacturing sites, it can easily run $5K a pop 
>>> or more for international; just five such trips consumes 25% of a 
>>> $100K budget.
>>>
>>> And so on.  Point is that when someone cherry-picks their bravado 
>>> claims to resist the temptation to fill in their missing gaps, since 
>>> those gaps invariably exist to filled in by readers with assumptions, 
>>> not facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> My desktop display is a 3 year old Dell 27" 3840x2160 HD. The Apple 
>>>>> display no doubt looks better, but a 2-3x the price.
>>>>
>>>> Apologies. I've no doubt your 27 inch screen is also great for 
>>>> viewing images. 
>>>
>>> Probably most 27" 4K screens today will do a fine job; the Devil in 
>>> the Details probably falls to other aspects of a third party display 
>>> beyond jut the image, such as if Apple's keyboard controls work 
>>> correctly for brightness & sound, if there's integrated speakers, 
>>> camera, etc.
>>
>>
>> They were all over $100k. Yes, they all spanned several years, ...
> 
> David, here's a good example of how there's more details beyond the 
> original cherrypicked brags.
> 
> FYI, Tommy invariably whines when I paramaterize from his claims, but to 
> illustrate, his above statement is suggesting that the only times that 
> there were any consultant contract of $100K or more was when it was 
> multi-year.
> 
> Thus, taking his "over $100K" claim as $120K and 3 years for "several" 
> claim, then what appears to be likely typical is in the ballpark of: 
> $120K/3 = $40K/year gross...
> 
> ...but note a couple of things.
> 
> 
>> ... the wheels of justice move slowly. There was very limited travel 
>> for these three, all short domestic trips. I do not have detailed P&L 
>> by project, but the business earned a 92% gross margin over its lifetime. 
> 
> Where "these three" appears to be stating that there's only been three 
> large projects:  TE: "But two legal cases went over $100k. Another was 
> about $80k."
> 
> ...but didn't he just claimed that the multi-years were "all over 
> $100K"?  Well, I guess in Tommy Math that $80K is more than $100K. /s
> 
> In any event, these numbers are his self-employed level gross before 
> overhead expenses, such as Social Security & Medicare.  For a self- 
> employed, the business has to pay the same as employee, which is 
> 7.65% ... and that's nearly all of his "92% gross margin" claim.  Before 
> the employee's SS/Med, above $40K SWAG drops to an employee gross of no 
> more than ~$37K/year just from this one gross-to-net adjustment. There's 
> others possible too, such as employer contributions to a 401(k).
> 
> In any event, with the rest being smaller than apparently $80K over his 
> "2002-2023" twenty two year working period, which at his present age of 
> 79, covers working years from age 56 to age 77, and all together he 
> humble-bragged "The total revenue was well over $1 million."
> 
> Since he would have bragged $2M had it exceeded $2M, this has bracketed 
> the total possible between $1M and $1.9999M.  Taking off 8% for his 
> employer overhead and dividing by 22 years, the lower & upper limits on 
> his claim are $41.8K to $83.6K ... and YMMV on if that is good or bad, 
> but with the context that national median for PhD holders is around 
> $100K/yr, even the $83K for the $1.9999M best case doesn't seem like 
> he's been crushing it.
> 
>> That includes international trips to Europe (1), Canada (1), Australia 
>> (1) and Latin America (3). Yes, a few international travel expenses 
>> were paid direct by the customer and are not included in the costs.
> 
> (8% - 7.65%) * $1M = $3500; for $2M = $7000.  The claimed 8% total 
> overhead budget doesn't appear to have enough bananas to cover more than 
> one or two such trips, let alone five.
> 
> 
> -hh


You appear to be taking a pop at someone for whom you should have more 
respect.

Why is that?

Back to comp.sys.mac.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-02 09:59 -0400
  Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-10-03 01:19 +0000
    Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-10-02 18:48 -0700
      Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-03 18:23 -0400
    Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-03 18:09 -0400
      Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-03 23:48 +0100
        Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-04 07:32 -0400
          Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-04 17:25 +0100
            Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-06 17:07 -0400
              Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-10-06 16:57 -0700
              Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-07 09:31 +0100
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-07 08:49 -0400
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-07 08:50 -0400
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-10-07 11:12 -0400
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-09 07:21 -0400
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-10-09 15:23 -0400
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-09 22:20 +0100
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-10-09 18:10 -0400
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-09 23:30 +0100
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 20:06 -0400
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-10-21 09:07 +0200
          Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-10-04 11:21 -0700
        Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-10-05 14:08 -0400
          Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-05 19:52 +0100
            Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-10-05 15:48 -0400
              Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-05 23:01 +0100
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-10-06 14:00 -0400
                Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-06 20:12 +0100
              Re: Marion's "free" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-06 17:09 -0400

csiph-web