deterioration of the middle class?

my dad was a large retail store manager (mid-career) (and then owner) 20 years ago and his salary was higher then than the high end arch salary now (as well as almost all other professional salaries listed)

is he an outlier? i don't know, maybe --- but it seemed his salary was not that unusual in north jersey at the time, it is not as if only the folks in the wall st. bedroom communities were earning that

i recall starting arch school in '96 and one of the graduating seniors being elated to get a starting offer of $36k at TVS in atlanta, perhaps a little high, but not ridiculous at the time --- that fifteen years later the average starting is only 5k higher despite inflation, two economic expansions and two building booms is revealing

ominous

Daaaamn! I should start pulling lists out of my ass too. The fun part is they actually explain a formula they used to derive this list.

Some fun observations:

Being a DISHWASHER (156) is better than being PLASTERER (170) , CARPENTER (171) or BRICKLAYER (173). All of these are better than being a DISK JOCKEY (174) but not nearly as bad as being a man in uniform: POLICE OFFICER (180), FIREFIGHTER (188) or even a MAIL CARRIER (191).

Making money also sucks: PHYSICIAN ($122-209K) is ranked 128 and has a worse job than NURSE'S AIDE ($17-33k) at #118.

It also sucks being CORPORATE EXECUTIVE (SENIOR) because making $69-171k is clearly a road to unhappiness (#133). Be a MAID (#131) instead and reap the benefits of $15-29k.

Who wrote this shit??

Tell your kid not to be a SURGEON ($196-428k) at #136. Because they can be ranked #112 instead and be happy as a CASHIER ($14-25k).

TYPIST/WORD PROCESSOR makes $22-46k and holds a much better position at #60 than lowly STOCKBROKER (#77, $31-171k), or ATTORNEY (#80, $54-171k).

Being a JANITOR (#83, 15-36k) is better than being an ARCHITECT, but what's even funnier ARCHITECTURAL DRAFTER ranks much,much higher (#48) than ARCHITECT (#86).

What's really insulting about this list is that it freely mixes jobs that barely put you over the poverty line with jobs that pay a living wage and jobs that actually pay really well. And then pretend like the difference is a tangible one.

It's as if this list was written by 1920's capitalist who will cry about how he worked very hard for every dollar he ever made.

If anything, the list shows an amazing, widening earning gap potential between haves and have-nots.

I know life is not all about money, but to suggest that a position that pays 5x less is somehow more desirable due to less stress is laughable. At least they got the bottom of the list right ie, low paying, high stress jobs do indeed suck.

Well it is based on environment, economic outlook, physical demands and stress. It's not just based on salary. Arch drafter is probably higher on the list because their stress level is lower with less obstacles to cross getting into the profession.

Yeah, I get that. What I'm saying is that some of these jobs barely pay a living wage, yet are being compared to other fields of work. There is nothing more stressful in life than being a paycheck or two away from being homeless.

As far as the example you used, what is an architectural drafter? Is that like an autocad operator/architectural technologist? The person who does most of architect's crap work, with full knowledge that they are artificially prevented from reaching a higher level in the profession?

"their stress level is lower with less obstacles to cross getting into the profession."

Way to blow yourself!

Well, I wonder if the reasoning for this list is whether based on accessibility to the general population. If the sample population was everyone... then you would be pitting janitors up against stockbrokers.

However, I'm quite sure the list would look quite different if you limited the list based on education. I will say, however, that many of the higher paying jobs may not always entirely be worth it.

"As far as the example you used, what is an architectural drafter? Is that like an autocad operator/architectural technologist? The person who does most of architect's crap work, with full knowledge that they are artificially prevented from reaching a higher level in the profession?"



I'm going to assume so. However, looking past the notion of upwards mobility... a person can technically become an architectural drafter after two or three semesters worth of coursework at ITT Tech.

Many GED students who are technically inclined would probably gladly trade a $35-45k draft job in air-conditioning for the rest of their lives versus the grim reality of other options.

So, to a person looking to dodge the life of working poverty... that kind of job may actually be exciting and fulfilling.

lol, you are retarted. I'm not a drafter so really i'm not blowing myself. Just stating obvious facts that you didn't seem to grasp.

I may be retarded whyARCH, but not retarded enough to use teenage terms such as lol.

I was specifically implying that you are NOT a drafter, since you somehow think that getting an accredited architectural degree is a thing of incredible hardship. It may be hard to get into a program of your choice, but after you do, it's a whole lotta busywork and not much else. To fail is to give up.

Yet, somehow you equate your incredible skill of submission to a virtue of praise. It kind of makes sense that a formal education focusing on delusion would eventually create a delusional professional. I would say having a well defined supporting role in a profession that breeds self importance is a lot more stressful than convincing yourself you're next coming of architectural jesus. So keep reaching for that shaft whyARCH. To expect anything less than a full-on retard from you would be such a letdown.

@Unicorn: I think it takes a lot more than a GED these days to have any kind of a meaningful role in an architectural office. Especially given the current shift to BIM, you need a strong understanding of construction just to be able to operate a software application. I would argue 'architectural drafter' does not exist as a profession any more. Combine that with job uncertainty, and that position should not even exist on the list.

The list doesn't include journalists or copywriters either.

I know someone that was hired on in the dot com boom at close to $40k starting - promptly laid off in the 2001-02 bust - and hired back into the profession with a salary in the low $30's.

The same thing is essentially happening again today, that is if you are lucky enough to get a job.

You twist every conversation into something other than the original topic. When did I say an accredited degree is a hardship? hmm, not seeing it. All I see is a comparison of 2 jobs in the same field. If you are a so-called architect you should know what an arch drafter is. The job details are in the title. All I am saying is you can go to a 2yr school and be a drafter making 35k or you can go to school for 5-8 years for architecture and start at 35k. Not saying one is better than the other because they hold completely different responsibilities, in fact I would hate to be just a drafter. There is no creativity at all. But some people might be happy "just" drafting all day.

I haven't seen an 'architectural drafter' since the office I worked at in 1999. Your mileage may vary... These positions are now held by entry level architects. And yes, there is a lot of overlap in responsibilities between the traditionally defined 'drafter' and variety of skills an intern must have before becoming an architect.

I still see occasional job post looking for an 'architectural technologist'. Starting salaries being between $10 and $15/hour, DOE. Far cry from $35k/year.

The reason I find this job chart dangerous is that someone may use it to as an aide to make an uninformed decision about a career choice. With educational costs spiraling out of control, even a simple ITT Tech diploma may put you in a huge debt without any guarantees of increased income.

I'm sorry for twisting every conversation into something other than the original topic. It's hard being a retar... ooo, Look! A baloon!

I agree the job of just an arch drafter is on its way out. so yeah technically it might as well not be discussed as if it has a future. High schools are even doing away with drafting class electives.

ITT Tech is a HUGE scam. 20k+/- a year for a non-transferable degree. I don't think so! People who can't get into real colleges are usually the ones suckered in.

I criticize the list for their lack of consistency, they use these fun words like Roustabout and Stevedore, Stationary Engineer (which I had to check and make sure wasn't one of those people who paint themselves from head to toe and stand still in a park for money), but then they totally dropped the ball on "shoe maker/repairer" which is much better known as a Cobbler or Cordwainer...

Frontline recently did an episode on private college institutions. It's called 'Fronline, College, Inc' and it available on Netflix streaming.

I thought I new the gist of the story before watching this, but it almost made me cry. It's borderline criminal what these businesses will do to desperate people who are hoping for slightly better wages.

Maybe that's why I'm so angry at this list. It looks like it was assembled by friendly folk at University of Phoenix.

That's a good observation tagalong. I had to look up a few of those myself. 'Shoe maker' was not changed since it probably is not offered as a diploma at a private college.

They should have totally changed 'Architectural Drafter' to 'Freemason's Little Helper'. I'd totally go back to school for that!

top level salary, $119,000? really?

I don't know a single big firm associate/sr designer type who bills out at less than $150, nor a single big firm principal who bills out at less than $180, and more frequently $220+. Either these people are clocking in overhead multipliers far in excess of 2.5x or they're making a lot more than $119,000.

Well urbanist, various expenses cut into those profits, like office lease, support staff, equipment and licenses, coke, lube, etc... If you are a salaried employee then $120k seems about right. If you are running the place, it is in your best interest to make your salary look as small as possible, for tax purposes. Try to business expense as many items in your personal life as you possibly dare...

steelstuds, that's what the overhead multiplier comes from.

In other words, if a principal bills out at $220 an hour (not an uncommon rate for one of the bosses at a big firm), then

220/2.5 (1x salary, pro rata share of the expenses at 1.5x -> 2.5x multiple) = $88 per hour... or $183,000 a year.

2.5x is a good multiplier. 2.9x is a high multiplier. At 2.9x, she would be making $158,000 a year.

Of course, these numbers include bonuses since the "profit" is inputed in those calculations.

Sr designers/associates at big firms make $85,000 to $140,000 in this city. Principals can make a lot more.

I recognize that multipliers probably have gone up due to layoffs (few people means that pro rata fixed costs - like rent - are correspondingly higher per person)

Sure, if you're going to go all math and facts on my ass. I like to use 'feelings' when arguing points I make up.

So, I 'feel' that 40 billable hours each week for each architect in a firm is not realistic in most cases. You also have to account for cost overruns. Horrible things happen in a course of a project. Lots of hours spent on a project are not billable.

Maybe big firms can charge $220+, but I know of firms that charge $90. Low overhead can get you far.

That being said, architectural contracts are negotiated with a lump sum fee. Hourly fee only kicks in at stages of work that are clearly defined by the contract (additional services, unforeseen scope changes, etc...).

I would love to see this profession pay more across the board, but it's just not the case.

in theory, your multiplier SHOULD capture all of that, but this is where the current depression-thingy comes in, and why I suspect you may be right. Pre-recession, 2.9x or 2.5x more than adequately captured less than 100% billability (the doctrine is 60% billability for principals). But if that billability falls to, say, 20% or 40%, then clearly the multiplier doesn't work anymore, and the principal in question may have to give herself a pay cut. But this is only a factor up to a point - any principal that sustains 20% or 40% billability will lose his job quickly at the type of organization I'm talking about, making the low billability a non-issue (or rather one synonymous with unemployment).

I do not know any people at that level who bill $90 multiplied at firms. Free-lancers, yes, but not people who work at large AE firms.