Believe the statitic, at least in Dallas is about 40% unemployed in Architecture and Interiors. I've been looking for full time employment for a year. Had 5 months of contract, and may have more contract on the way, BUT a disturbing development circulating is that firms with positions are looking for employed folks to fill them. Iguess eventually if Firm A hires someone from Firm B, And Firm B hires someone from Firm C, Firm C might have to look at unemployed folks to fill their position. BUT that adds even MORE time to the unemployed's search and trust me a year is quite long enough. Anyone else hear of this trend?
It's not really surprising: nothing signals that a person is a great worker that makes valuable contributions to their firm like not having been laid off.
Well copper top you are right because the people making the initial hiring suggestions are the HR people, and with all due respect you and I both know that the best or the brightest were not the ones that got to keep their jobs.
I would tend to doubt this is a real trend. Experience is probably a more important factor - many of the positions I see opening up now require people with specific backgrounds. Pipelines are not so good as to allow firms to hire on spec. People are getting hired to play specific roles on specific contracts. It doesn't matter whether they are employed or unemployed specialists, but they are all specialists. Moral of the story is: be a specialist.
"It's not really surprising: nothing signals that a person is a great worker that makes valuable contributions to their firm like not having been laid off.'
Or are good looking, or suck ups, or (most likely) just plain lucky. You good lucking, lucky, sick-up, you!
So, not to be a downer (and as a disclaimer, i spent 13 months unemployed after graduation), but lets look at the facts.
the best architects out there may have been laid off, but they were ripe for the picking by any surviving company that would have otherwise not been able to afford them during the bush era economic expansion.
experienced architects, willing to work for near miserable wages (something is better than nothing, and i don't think you can argue that in the middle of a depression, while unemployed) would have had relatively small gaps in their employment, and as such, it would make sense that companies would be looking for these sorts of people (the ones such high in demand they were able to keep their jobs or get new jobs in the middle of a hellish economy downturn).
basically, HR is using abstract supply and demand concepts in order to guide their hiring practices... if you have a job, it suggests you are in high demand. if you were are high demand, and weren't fired when even the best companies could have easily justified doing so, it means you possibly had something better to offer than all those people who did lose their jobs, or weren't able to find one (like me).
sorry fluxbound,
Theres now way you can convince me that the people that kept a job at my last firm had more to offer than i did, you know why I know that? because I trained a lot of them.
with 50% of architecture people Unemployed, I think calling it a "hellish economy" is a huge understatement, in fact it is the worst unemployment downturn that architects have seen since the Great Depression.
I'm not actually upset about getting let go from my last office, and I'm glad that some of those people still have jobs, but I am optimistic that people like me that know how to build stuff will be needed sometime in the future, otherwise people like me do that the know how to go off on our own, we'll see what happens.
It's not really surprising: nothing signals that a person is a great worker that makes valuable contributions to their firm like not having been laid off.
Totally broad over-simplification. Sure, first round lay-offs probably were aimed at the people that the office would have eventually let go anyway. However, we all know offices had to cut a lot more than that.
Lay-offs at my last office had more to do with other factors, mostly the most recent hires were let go first and people who didn't fit the office culture- example being people that had too much to offer, i.e. people with skills and backgrounds that the office simply didn't have the resources to use. By the time my last office had finished lay-offs, the only people left were those that were licensed or well on their way to being licensed, which doesn't reflect what those people actually contributed to the office other than being marketable to clients.
I think for a lot of people, lay-offs were more determined by bad timing in the workforce. This is especially true for recent graduates like myself that have experience, but perhaps not years of continuous experience and who entered the workforce at the wrong time. It's discouraging to think that some of us are going to be punished for something that was beyond our control.
What is even worse than the unemployed discrimination is that for those of us that have been unemployed for an extended period of time will face a lifetime of setbacks and potentially other emotional and sociological problems. Lower salaries will be the norm and making up the difference pre- to post- recession will be difficult if not impossible. Even those that kept their jobs at reduced wages will still be at a higher pay-scale than those who get get hired today or tomorrow. Most of us will continue to feel insecure about money and job security and will likely remain working for the same companies for extended periods of time, further lowering wages.
Already marriage rates are decreasing as people are forced to leave the decision for a family until later in life; a simple aspect like this ripples into future generations. Divorce rates have also dropped (due to expense) which is slowly creating a whole sociological spectrum of alternative families. Studies have also shown that men who endure extended unemployment often end up becoming alcoholics, abusive and distant from family and friends later in life.
All in all, no good can come of this the longer it lasts.
i don't think they are actively looking for people who are employed. i do think firms are being very conservative and would like to employ people who are known quantities. I think there's a lot more movement in the market than the job boards would let on. People are hiring friends and contacts in hopes that they get someone who they won't regret cause they don't have the room on the books at this point to carry someone who won't pull their weight. Also, I think firms don't want to have to sift through 300 resumes and teasers to find those diamonds in the rough. I feel like we've hit an equilibrium, firms with rosy outlooks are hiring, but there are still a lot of people treading water and shedding extra weight. And as the days pass, those projects that are on hold, owners who were nervous about the economic outlook are starting to pull the trigger. I think people are hiring conservatively, but soon that pool will dry up... and we'll all have jobs, order will be restored to the 'nect community, and we can continue heated debates about which grad schools to apply to!
Out layoffs were projects based. We lost one project, the entire team got get go not matter how good/bad people were. Then we lost another one and so on. They did keep some people that had good relationships (30 years) with the principals/owners, but that is about it, all drafters, designers, architects, project managers etc. were out drinking on the same day and bitching about it....
I think postal's got it right. Most people I know on the job hunt get something because of a friend or contact. Sending out resumes, even to job postings, hasn't been too successful for most people I know.
My work post-grad school has all come from contacts. I've been doing a lot of contract work, and aside from the lack of health insurance, it's worked out well. Since people are hiring so conservatively, and often for only a few month time frame, there is not as great a willingness to look for the "perfect" person, but someone who is readily available, competent and can get the job done fast. So, in that regard, I think being active within the profession, employed or not, is really what makes the difference.
the movement i'm seeing right now are firms trying to 'gin up' in terms of their talent pool. there's definitely some high-level (senior associate levels and above) shifting that's been going on the past few years, especially if those people (as mentioned above) have an expertise in governmental/higher ed/industrial/whatever your region actually has work in.
what i don't see firsthand is any bias towards 'only' hiring people who are currently employed. of course, my bubble is fairly small.
Could it be that those people that are hiring think that if somebody is working in this economy and hasn't been laid off, are really good and worth hiring as opposed to people that have been laid off? Maybe in their mind those people got laid off because they weren't worth keeping? Or if they were laid off, they've been out of the field for a while, that they are getting 'rusty'?
Whatever the reason, I believe that whoever is hiring....they are missing on some quality candidates if avoiding laid off peeps.
I think there are a lot of reasons, but if you want me to give you a quick answer. Basically I became too autonomous, there were only like maybe a handful of people that could possibly teach me something, bottom line they didn't like me. just a quick guess. I feel fortunate that i was let go in some ways because I was getting tired of teaching others, and not learning anything from anyone there in return. Otherwise I would have probably quit eventually, and gotten no unemployment benefits.
It's not as simple as 'Let's just always keep the most qualified.' Any architectural firm has different needs at different times. Sometimes the need is for a visualizer, sometimes it's for a fee negotiator. Sometimes it's for an intern model maker who gets paid shit, sometimes it's for a high level executive who can see the big picture and enact minute changes in order to facilitate the firm MAKING MONEY.
If I had a firm and we were facing either financial bust or letting go of dead [*at the time*, that's the caveat] weight, then can you guess what I'd do?
The capitalist system is extremely 'survival of the fittest'. And why shouldn't it be? Yet, however, sometimes architecture firms need low end production and high end knowledge/wisdom is actually a drain of resources. If I had that imaginary firm, yeah? And if I only had competitions, and not real projects, yeah? Guess who is getting the sack? It's not the low level juniors who can run mental ray and v-ray and 3dsmax and grasshopper and Generative Components. It's the higher level guys who AREN'T CONTRIBUTING FINANCIALLY TO THE FIRM AND MIGHT NOT BE FOR A LONG TIME.
Feel free to offer a logical, oppositional opinion, but in my opinion, if you're not actively contributing, you can get the hell out.
I hate to say it, but laying off teams who are not currently billable may actually be the fairest way to do it when you just don't have a choice (as opposed to some type of hairy-fairy evaluation of who's the best or nicest or most productive). Less room for arbitrary favoritism, however arbitrary it is that the team became not billable in the first place.
jplourde,
I don't know if your ^post was a response to me. I know I have the knowledge level of at least a 15 year veteran architect, but Ive only been out of college less than 10 years, I was one of the lowest payed people in that office, and I was known for my expertize having worked at various offices, and out at Construction sites, my knowledge grew exponentially, not to mention that I read books all the time, and oh yes, I'm pretty much an expert at all latest and greatest computer programs. I'm one of those guys that when you talk to me at the jobsite or office you know right away that I know my shit, and will one day open up my own office. I think opening my own office is the best way to get back in.
So, to summarize, your opinion may not apply to every situation, why? because sometimes VP's who are business men, but also have feelings, just don't like you for whatever reason, and they want you to get the hell out.
DQ, my post was not in anyway directed solely to you.
Of course, I fully agree that the subjective and the personal completely influence business. 'It's not what you know, it's who you know.' I hate that statement. It's just pure nepotism.
And I'm sorry that's your circumstance, it does seem unfair.
I do happen to think that the capitalist system [and socialist, and any system we have come up with so far] is fundamentally flawed. But I don't think that arguing economic systems and ethical mores or values is all that pertinent to an architectural forum.
It's all gotten V E R Y petty in the offices during this, and please don't overestimate the business savvy of architects running an office and thus making those tough business decisions. The mangement teams I've encountered get to that point by default. You'll notice the business gene is definitely missing in this profession. Most of what I've heard and seen and experienced in a layoff, had about 30% to do with skill and the balance with who's a threat and how can I posture myself to survive by getting rid of those threats, BUT my experience is with the large firms H _ K, _ _ _ sler, etc. My point is that the folks out of work aren't the lower quality members of an office, they just weren't perhaps politically savvy enough to save themselves / ourselves / myself or didn't care to play those games. SO hopefully we aren't BRANDED as being unable to contribute meaningfully to the profession, but more so being weeded out do to lack of political prowess.
All I can say is that for someone that just graduated with a 4 year bachelors, absolutely no one is going to hire me with all the people that already have years of experience out there looking for work. My only option is to go back and get an M.Arch or a Master's degree in another field, since no one around me is going to be hiring new graduates for awhile, and by the time they are my degree will be outdated, since I won't have any "recent" work to show.
the logic that if you're worth it you would still be working is problematic.
if someone stayed with a firm b/c they were promised their job was safe, even though they had an instinct to take another, but then got let go anyway b/c the firms workload nose-dived further, should they be automatically written off as someone who is probably not worth it b/c they were let go?
If someone was in the process of going back to school and figured that they would ride it out with a firm despite the clear signs that it was time to leave, just b/c they felt it not worth starting in a new place and then immediately leaving, and as a result the person allowed him/herself to be vulnerable to being let go, should that reflect negatively on them?
If someone decides to take a chance by staying with a struggling firm b/c they just like the firm and the people so much and then he/she is let go b/c the client or project to which they are assigned goes away, should that person really just be written off as, "well, if they were better they'd still be here?"
If a person specifically allowed his/herself to miss out on education or advancement or a chance to make his/herself more generally marketable b/c they did what the employer wanted and specialized in an area that was of convenience to the employer, and then is let go when that capacity is no longer a priority, should they be considered not worth considering?
I can think of all sorts of circumstances related to loyalty, being tethered to a place, liking one's co-workers and work, having extenuating personal circumstances, why someone would take a chance and stay with a sinking ship in the hope that it works out. Does such a person really deserve to be essentialized as someone who just couldn't hack it?
I would say one reason as to why jobs are going to people with jobs is the simple matter of the actual cost of hiring people.
Sorry, people with families... but you're just too expensive to move!
Architecture, along with other AEC professions, doesn't seem to offer much in terms of relocation, sign on bonuses or even short-term loans.
While the national average for relocation of an employee is about $65,000, I'd break it into more fair categories:
18-35, No family as in single or perhaps dating/engaged, renter: $3500 minor city, $5500 major city
35-55, No family, renter: $15,000, -/+ $3,000
55+, No family, renter: $10,000-20,000
Homeowners: Add $15,000
People with young families: Add $8,000 - $12,000
People with older families: Add $12,000 - $18,000
Major city: Add additional $5,000
Married Add additional $3,000
So, in a sense, it really is quite expensive to move people around. For someone to pay off their relocation expenses, they'd basically have to make double their salary in a year. Can a really skilled worker bill that much out? Probably. Is this a really big deal? Only if your profit margin is razor thin.
I'd say the best logical explanation for hiring people with jobs is that they will have the income to relocate themselves. And, if they lack all of the money necessary for relocating... at least people with current employment will qualify for a short-term personal bank loan.
So what you are saying is that I need to attach a copy of my bank statement with my cover letter if applying for jobs outside of my city/state so the employer knows I can afford the moving expenses on my own and doesn't need to worry about covering that.
All that political games, kissing ups, etc. that a lot of us are too proud to engage in are actually essential skills of a successful architect. Face it, we need to deal with clients, consultants, contractors, and the public. "Knowing our shit" is only half the battle. We need to be people people to succeed. If we have what it takes to survive architecture school, we can definitely learn to "play the game" and be good at it. If we only realize that "playing the game" is part of our required kraft.
This recession reminds all of us to not neglate this area of our practice.
I would simply state that you have the financial resources to be ready to work immediately.
Despite claiming about being virtually unemployable, I have gotten a scant number of job offers in places being either far too expensive or requiring the use of a car.
I basically have enough money at my disposal (Hello, relatives!) to either fix my car or move to a car-free environment. Unfortunately, there's not much for jobs in a 30 mile radius and car-free cities are far too competitive.
But, I'll basically only move if I can get at least a grand for either a sign on bonus or relocation expenses (and I have little to no problem with handing over ever receipt and paying an employer back over the course of a year).
I've moved before with absolutely no money and that really sets you up to have a horrible year. By the time you're already caught up again, its already the next year and the cycle is repeating itself!
Why not change your address to the specific city and be done with it? Instead of stating that you have the money, why not just let them assume you live in the city and fly in next day for the interview? I know some people that did that!
I ended up moving to NYC just because I knew there were a lot of firms hiring, but only considering local candidates. In one of the interviews I flew in for before moving, it was made extremely obvious that I would not be hired because of the constraints involved in having me work while scheduling the many errands associated with moving to the city, even if I could guarantee being able to start 5 days after the interview.
With zero experience, out of 150 job applications over the course of a year while home, I got 2 interviews. Out of 150 while in the city for 3 months, I got 4, and a lot more friendly replies. (I also realistically blame my extended unemployment on the fact that my interpersonal skills were on "sleep mode" for about 5 of those interviews. Living in a cave while trying to save money by playing old videogames and watching TV totally messes with you.)
poop876: I have actually tried that tactic and it backfired twice. Both offices called and wanted me to come in for an interview that day or the day after... that's really short notice to get airfare. Unless the job is amazing, I'm not really willing to shell out $200+ dollars to be one of 10-20 candidates they interview on the slight possibility I get the job.
As for just moving somewhere... that seems like a huge risk. I know it's paid off for some people but I see too many of my friends living in other cities barely making it by as it is.
Eventually someone will be willing to take a chance on a small town boy...living in a lonely world.
In retrospect,
I think when offices begin to hire, they will prefer to hire recent graduates. Why you ask? well financial reasons aside. I'm referring to the social implications of hiring or rehiring those professionals that can run circles around those that were not let go.
If they hire someone with years of experience, then that person shows up to work, the less experienced and less qualified person who was not fired for whatever reason, (will probably be thinking "why did they fire this guy he is way better than I am"), is completely out of his league when dealing with the "new hire". The new hire will probably feel very upset to have his fears verified that they kept an ESPN, internet Chatting, grad student over him or her. I don't think I have to tell any of you guys how awkward that situation will become.
Another reason is that the new hire will not be cynical. Having no exposure to office politics yet amongst other things.
just thought I'd light get that off my shoulders. ok let me put my gloves on I can hear the angry refuting posts being typed.
I'd like to see an office survive by just hiring one or the other, DonQuixote. You need experienced professionals/project archs and you need youngsters both.. unless you just want to do concept design or something silly. Pyramids work well though.. gotta keep the average wage bill low or clients start throwing up...
jobs going to people with jobs
Believe the statitic, at least in Dallas is about 40% unemployed in Architecture and Interiors. I've been looking for full time employment for a year. Had 5 months of contract, and may have more contract on the way, BUT a disturbing development circulating is that firms with positions are looking for employed folks to fill them. Iguess eventually if Firm A hires someone from Firm B, And Firm B hires someone from Firm C, Firm C might have to look at unemployed folks to fill their position. BUT that adds even MORE time to the unemployed's search and trust me a year is quite long enough. Anyone else hear of this trend?
in fact it was talked about right here on the 'nect just a few days ago...
It's not really surprising: nothing signals that a person is a great worker that makes valuable contributions to their firm like not having been laid off.
Well copper top you are right because the people making the initial hiring suggestions are the HR people, and with all due respect you and I both know that the best or the brightest were not the ones that got to keep their jobs.
I would tend to doubt this is a real trend. Experience is probably a more important factor - many of the positions I see opening up now require people with specific backgrounds. Pipelines are not so good as to allow firms to hire on spec. People are getting hired to play specific roles on specific contracts. It doesn't matter whether they are employed or unemployed specialists, but they are all specialists. Moral of the story is: be a specialist.
You wouldn't want to work for such a firm anyway.
You wouldn't want to work for such a firm anyway.
Or are good looking, or suck ups, or (most likely) just plain lucky. You good lucking, lucky, sick-up, you!
So, not to be a downer (and as a disclaimer, i spent 13 months unemployed after graduation), but lets look at the facts.
the best architects out there may have been laid off, but they were ripe for the picking by any surviving company that would have otherwise not been able to afford them during the bush era economic expansion.
experienced architects, willing to work for near miserable wages (something is better than nothing, and i don't think you can argue that in the middle of a depression, while unemployed) would have had relatively small gaps in their employment, and as such, it would make sense that companies would be looking for these sorts of people (the ones such high in demand they were able to keep their jobs or get new jobs in the middle of a hellish economy downturn).
basically, HR is using abstract supply and demand concepts in order to guide their hiring practices... if you have a job, it suggests you are in high demand. if you were are high demand, and weren't fired when even the best companies could have easily justified doing so, it means you possibly had something better to offer than all those people who did lose their jobs, or weren't able to find one (like me).
sorry fluxbound,
Theres now way you can convince me that the people that kept a job at my last firm had more to offer than i did, you know why I know that? because I trained a lot of them.
with 50% of architecture people Unemployed, I think calling it a "hellish economy" is a huge understatement, in fact it is the worst unemployment downturn that architects have seen since the Great Depression.
I'm not actually upset about getting let go from my last office, and I'm glad that some of those people still have jobs, but I am optimistic that people like me that know how to build stuff will be needed sometime in the future, otherwise people like me do that the know how to go off on our own, we'll see what happens.
Totally broad over-simplification. Sure, first round lay-offs probably were aimed at the people that the office would have eventually let go anyway. However, we all know offices had to cut a lot more than that.
Lay-offs at my last office had more to do with other factors, mostly the most recent hires were let go first and people who didn't fit the office culture- example being people that had too much to offer, i.e. people with skills and backgrounds that the office simply didn't have the resources to use. By the time my last office had finished lay-offs, the only people left were those that were licensed or well on their way to being licensed, which doesn't reflect what those people actually contributed to the office other than being marketable to clients.
I think for a lot of people, lay-offs were more determined by bad timing in the workforce. This is especially true for recent graduates like myself that have experience, but perhaps not years of continuous experience and who entered the workforce at the wrong time. It's discouraging to think that some of us are going to be punished for something that was beyond our control.
What is even worse than the unemployed discrimination is that for those of us that have been unemployed for an extended period of time will face a lifetime of setbacks and potentially other emotional and sociological problems. Lower salaries will be the norm and making up the difference pre- to post- recession will be difficult if not impossible. Even those that kept their jobs at reduced wages will still be at a higher pay-scale than those who get get hired today or tomorrow. Most of us will continue to feel insecure about money and job security and will likely remain working for the same companies for extended periods of time, further lowering wages.
Already marriage rates are decreasing as people are forced to leave the decision for a family until later in life; a simple aspect like this ripples into future generations. Divorce rates have also dropped (due to expense) which is slowly creating a whole sociological spectrum of alternative families. Studies have also shown that men who endure extended unemployment often end up becoming alcoholics, abusive and distant from family and friends later in life.
All in all, no good can come of this the longer it lasts.
correction to part of my sentence "people like me do have the know how to go off on our own"
So, Don, why were you let go while they weren't?
Just trying to understand.
Very interesting responses. thanks.
i don't think they are actively looking for people who are employed. i do think firms are being very conservative and would like to employ people who are known quantities. I think there's a lot more movement in the market than the job boards would let on. People are hiring friends and contacts in hopes that they get someone who they won't regret cause they don't have the room on the books at this point to carry someone who won't pull their weight. Also, I think firms don't want to have to sift through 300 resumes and teasers to find those diamonds in the rough. I feel like we've hit an equilibrium, firms with rosy outlooks are hiring, but there are still a lot of people treading water and shedding extra weight. And as the days pass, those projects that are on hold, owners who were nervous about the economic outlook are starting to pull the trigger. I think people are hiring conservatively, but soon that pool will dry up... and we'll all have jobs, order will be restored to the 'nect community, and we can continue heated debates about which grad schools to apply to!
Out layoffs were projects based. We lost one project, the entire team got get go not matter how good/bad people were. Then we lost another one and so on. They did keep some people that had good relationships (30 years) with the principals/owners, but that is about it, all drafters, designers, architects, project managers etc. were out drinking on the same day and bitching about it....
I think postal's got it right. Most people I know on the job hunt get something because of a friend or contact. Sending out resumes, even to job postings, hasn't been too successful for most people I know.
My work post-grad school has all come from contacts. I've been doing a lot of contract work, and aside from the lack of health insurance, it's worked out well. Since people are hiring so conservatively, and often for only a few month time frame, there is not as great a willingness to look for the "perfect" person, but someone who is readily available, competent and can get the job done fast. So, in that regard, I think being active within the profession, employed or not, is really what makes the difference.
This is simply not a true statement ... even though there are many here who would like for it to be true.
"...with all due respect, you and I both know that the best or the brightest were not the ones that got to keep their jobs..."
I tend to agree. If not the case, the bar has been set REALLY low, so perhaps time for career change.
no money no honey
coworker - "What are these dots on the floor plan?"
me - "What dots?"
coworker - "These dots!" pointing to hatched columns!!!
this is one of the people still working here....while some of the best people I've worked with, are out there searching...
the movement i'm seeing right now are firms trying to 'gin up' in terms of their talent pool. there's definitely some high-level (senior associate levels and above) shifting that's been going on the past few years, especially if those people (as mentioned above) have an expertise in governmental/higher ed/industrial/whatever your region actually has work in.
what i don't see firsthand is any bias towards 'only' hiring people who are currently employed. of course, my bubble is fairly small.
Could it be that those people that are hiring think that if somebody is working in this economy and hasn't been laid off, are really good and worth hiring as opposed to people that have been laid off? Maybe in their mind those people got laid off because they weren't worth keeping? Or if they were laid off, they've been out of the field for a while, that they are getting 'rusty'?
Whatever the reason, I believe that whoever is hiring....they are missing on some quality candidates if avoiding laid off peeps.
"So, Don, why were you let go while they weren't?
Just trying to understand."- fluxbound
I think there are a lot of reasons, but if you want me to give you a quick answer. Basically I became too autonomous, there were only like maybe a handful of people that could possibly teach me something, bottom line they didn't like me. just a quick guess. I feel fortunate that i was let go in some ways because I was getting tired of teaching others, and not learning anything from anyone there in return. Otherwise I would have probably quit eventually, and gotten no unemployment benefits.
It's not as simple as 'Let's just always keep the most qualified.' Any architectural firm has different needs at different times. Sometimes the need is for a visualizer, sometimes it's for a fee negotiator. Sometimes it's for an intern model maker who gets paid shit, sometimes it's for a high level executive who can see the big picture and enact minute changes in order to facilitate the firm MAKING MONEY.
If I had a firm and we were facing either financial bust or letting go of dead [*at the time*, that's the caveat] weight, then can you guess what I'd do?
The capitalist system is extremely 'survival of the fittest'. And why shouldn't it be? Yet, however, sometimes architecture firms need low end production and high end knowledge/wisdom is actually a drain of resources. If I had that imaginary firm, yeah? And if I only had competitions, and not real projects, yeah? Guess who is getting the sack? It's not the low level juniors who can run mental ray and v-ray and 3dsmax and grasshopper and Generative Components. It's the higher level guys who AREN'T CONTRIBUTING FINANCIALLY TO THE FIRM AND MIGHT NOT BE FOR A LONG TIME.
Feel free to offer a logical, oppositional opinion, but in my opinion, if you're not actively contributing, you can get the hell out.
I hate to say it, but laying off teams who are not currently billable may actually be the fairest way to do it when you just don't have a choice (as opposed to some type of hairy-fairy evaluation of who's the best or nicest or most productive). Less room for arbitrary favoritism, however arbitrary it is that the team became not billable in the first place.
jplourde,
I don't know if your ^post was a response to me. I know I have the knowledge level of at least a 15 year veteran architect, but Ive only been out of college less than 10 years, I was one of the lowest payed people in that office, and I was known for my expertize having worked at various offices, and out at Construction sites, my knowledge grew exponentially, not to mention that I read books all the time, and oh yes, I'm pretty much an expert at all latest and greatest computer programs. I'm one of those guys that when you talk to me at the jobsite or office you know right away that I know my shit, and will one day open up my own office. I think opening my own office is the best way to get back in.
So, to summarize, your opinion may not apply to every situation, why? because sometimes VP's who are business men, but also have feelings, just don't like you for whatever reason, and they want you to get the hell out.
DQ, my post was not in anyway directed solely to you.
Of course, I fully agree that the subjective and the personal completely influence business. 'It's not what you know, it's who you know.' I hate that statement. It's just pure nepotism.
And I'm sorry that's your circumstance, it does seem unfair.
I do happen to think that the capitalist system [and socialist, and any system we have come up with so far] is fundamentally flawed. But I don't think that arguing economic systems and ethical mores or values is all that pertinent to an architectural forum.
It's all gotten V E R Y petty in the offices during this, and please don't overestimate the business savvy of architects running an office and thus making those tough business decisions. The mangement teams I've encountered get to that point by default. You'll notice the business gene is definitely missing in this profession. Most of what I've heard and seen and experienced in a layoff, had about 30% to do with skill and the balance with who's a threat and how can I posture myself to survive by getting rid of those threats, BUT my experience is with the large firms H _ K, _ _ _ sler, etc. My point is that the folks out of work aren't the lower quality members of an office, they just weren't perhaps politically savvy enough to save themselves / ourselves / myself or didn't care to play those games. SO hopefully we aren't BRANDED as being unable to contribute meaningfully to the profession, but more so being weeded out do to lack of political prowess.
Thats life, what'cha gonna do, forget about it and move forward is all we can do.
yep
All I can say is that for someone that just graduated with a 4 year bachelors, absolutely no one is going to hire me with all the people that already have years of experience out there looking for work. My only option is to go back and get an M.Arch or a Master's degree in another field, since no one around me is going to be hiring new graduates for awhile, and by the time they are my degree will be outdated, since I won't have any "recent" work to show.
the logic that if you're worth it you would still be working is problematic.
if someone stayed with a firm b/c they were promised their job was safe, even though they had an instinct to take another, but then got let go anyway b/c the firms workload nose-dived further, should they be automatically written off as someone who is probably not worth it b/c they were let go?
If someone was in the process of going back to school and figured that they would ride it out with a firm despite the clear signs that it was time to leave, just b/c they felt it not worth starting in a new place and then immediately leaving, and as a result the person allowed him/herself to be vulnerable to being let go, should that reflect negatively on them?
If someone decides to take a chance by staying with a struggling firm b/c they just like the firm and the people so much and then he/she is let go b/c the client or project to which they are assigned goes away, should that person really just be written off as, "well, if they were better they'd still be here?"
If a person specifically allowed his/herself to miss out on education or advancement or a chance to make his/herself more generally marketable b/c they did what the employer wanted and specialized in an area that was of convenience to the employer, and then is let go when that capacity is no longer a priority, should they be considered not worth considering?
I can think of all sorts of circumstances related to loyalty, being tethered to a place, liking one's co-workers and work, having extenuating personal circumstances, why someone would take a chance and stay with a sinking ship in the hope that it works out. Does such a person really deserve to be essentialized as someone who just couldn't hack it?
VERY well put jmanganelli. Herein lies the illogic of what we are seeing.
I would say one reason as to why jobs are going to people with jobs is the simple matter of the actual cost of hiring people.
Sorry, people with families... but you're just too expensive to move!
Architecture, along with other AEC professions, doesn't seem to offer much in terms of relocation, sign on bonuses or even short-term loans.
While the national average for relocation of an employee is about $65,000, I'd break it into more fair categories:
18-35, No family as in single or perhaps dating/engaged, renter: $3500 minor city, $5500 major city
35-55, No family, renter: $15,000, -/+ $3,000
55+, No family, renter: $10,000-20,000
Homeowners: Add $15,000
People with young families: Add $8,000 - $12,000
People with older families: Add $12,000 - $18,000
Major city: Add additional $5,000
Married Add additional $3,000
So, in a sense, it really is quite expensive to move people around. For someone to pay off their relocation expenses, they'd basically have to make double their salary in a year. Can a really skilled worker bill that much out? Probably. Is this a really big deal? Only if your profit margin is razor thin.
I'd say the best logical explanation for hiring people with jobs is that they will have the income to relocate themselves. And, if they lack all of the money necessary for relocating... at least people with current employment will qualify for a short-term personal bank loan.
The situations we are seeing doesn't involve relocating, it's just moving from one firm to another in the same city.
Your city has more than one profitable firm?
I know I'm not in Narnia because I haven't been near any creepy chifforobes or armoires today.
Jadis = Greenspan/Bernake/Summer
Lucy = Pelosi
Susan = Sarkozy [aka, pretty, but really who the eff cares]
Edmund = Wen Jiabao
Peter = Obama, because, really?
Aslan = Rove, Cheney, Axelrod, etc. or didn't you know?
So what you are saying is that I need to attach a copy of my bank statement with my cover letter if applying for jobs outside of my city/state so the employer knows I can afford the moving expenses on my own and doesn't need to worry about covering that.
Just want to put this out there:
All that political games, kissing ups, etc. that a lot of us are too proud to engage in are actually essential skills of a successful architect. Face it, we need to deal with clients, consultants, contractors, and the public. "Knowing our shit" is only half the battle. We need to be people people to succeed. If we have what it takes to survive architecture school, we can definitely learn to "play the game" and be good at it. If we only realize that "playing the game" is part of our required kraft.
This recession reminds all of us to not neglate this area of our practice.
I would simply state that you have the financial resources to be ready to work immediately.
Despite claiming about being virtually unemployable, I have gotten a scant number of job offers in places being either far too expensive or requiring the use of a car.
I basically have enough money at my disposal (Hello, relatives!) to either fix my car or move to a car-free environment. Unfortunately, there's not much for jobs in a 30 mile radius and car-free cities are far too competitive.
But, I'll basically only move if I can get at least a grand for either a sign on bonus or relocation expenses (and I have little to no problem with handing over ever receipt and paying an employer back over the course of a year).
I've moved before with absolutely no money and that really sets you up to have a horrible year. By the time you're already caught up again, its already the next year and the cycle is repeating itself!
Blegh. Back on topic!
Why not change your address to the specific city and be done with it? Instead of stating that you have the money, why not just let them assume you live in the city and fly in next day for the interview? I know some people that did that!
I ended up moving to NYC just because I knew there were a lot of firms hiring, but only considering local candidates. In one of the interviews I flew in for before moving, it was made extremely obvious that I would not be hired because of the constraints involved in having me work while scheduling the many errands associated with moving to the city, even if I could guarantee being able to start 5 days after the interview.
With zero experience, out of 150 job applications over the course of a year while home, I got 2 interviews. Out of 150 while in the city for 3 months, I got 4, and a lot more friendly replies. (I also realistically blame my extended unemployment on the fact that my interpersonal skills were on "sleep mode" for about 5 of those interviews. Living in a cave while trying to save money by playing old videogames and watching TV totally messes with you.)
poop876: I have actually tried that tactic and it backfired twice. Both offices called and wanted me to come in for an interview that day or the day after... that's really short notice to get airfare. Unless the job is amazing, I'm not really willing to shell out $200+ dollars to be one of 10-20 candidates they interview on the slight possibility I get the job.
As for just moving somewhere... that seems like a huge risk. I know it's paid off for some people but I see too many of my friends living in other cities barely making it by as it is.
Eventually someone will be willing to take a chance on a small town boy...living in a lonely world.
jplourde,
So who's the wicked snow witch creature?
Bjork, of course.
oh sorry.. I forgot that jadis IS the name of the white witch.
In retrospect,
I think when offices begin to hire, they will prefer to hire recent graduates. Why you ask? well financial reasons aside. I'm referring to the social implications of hiring or rehiring those professionals that can run circles around those that were not let go.
If they hire someone with years of experience, then that person shows up to work, the less experienced and less qualified person who was not fired for whatever reason, (will probably be thinking "why did they fire this guy he is way better than I am"), is completely out of his league when dealing with the "new hire". The new hire will probably feel very upset to have his fears verified that they kept an ESPN, internet Chatting, grad student over him or her. I don't think I have to tell any of you guys how awkward that situation will become.
Another reason is that the new hire will not be cynical. Having no exposure to office politics yet amongst other things.
just thought I'd light get that off my shoulders. ok let me put my gloves on I can hear the angry refuting posts being typed.
I'd like to see an office survive by just hiring one or the other, DonQuixote. You need experienced professionals/project archs and you need youngsters both.. unless you just want to do concept design or something silly. Pyramids work well though.. gotta keep the average wage bill low or clients start throwing up...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.