Yeah but the details don't matter when you say "full time equivilant". Just health insurance alone will be far far far more than you are allowing. Then there's all the tax implications. Like, if you said 2500x I might consider beleiving you. 3000x I'd probably believe you.
When I read
> My rule of thumb as a contractor is to take the hourly rate x2100 to get an equivalent full-time salary plus benefits, 401k, vacation, etc.
I thought you meant to include everything on top of salary. Reading it again after this thread, maybe you meant to this is the calculation for hourly from full time salary, and then you need to also do ("plus") a calculation for everything else.
Why? It's not obvious that an employee works 2080 hours, for example, because they take vacation (or work extra), so charging a 2100th of salary doesn't cover vacation benefit. Also, the employer will pay part of health insurance, and that isn't included in the salary number, so why would it be covered by a calculation from the salary.
Every contractor already knows all this. And those who don't learn quick.
I'm not clear what you're arguing here.
When I evaluate an hourly rate, I multiply by 2100 and ask myself if this is a reasonable salary & benefits total package.
So if my rate is $125 an hour, that comes to $263k, which is a base salary of around $200k plus healthcare, self-employment taxes and sick/vacation time, etc. Now my healthcare costs might be lower than others and I don't factor in retirement because I work primarily for startups, but again this is why each contractor calculates differently.
I wouldn't multiply it by more hours if it was insufficient, I would just raise my rate.