Minor mistake..Correction= %59.0

Yea, I read an article in the WSJ 8 months ago that pretty well documented Architects were the hardest hit of any of the professions.

I am writing Record now, since they printed it, I want to see the backup data. It's gov't data, so it's public knowledge.

you should tell them to make their magazine better

Sloppy reporting like that might have something to do with Record being dumped as the AIA magazine.

BTW, I've heard my local AIA chapter estimate unemployment in the region at about 40% amongst registered Architects.

there are a host of factors that the bureau numbers don't take into account, so treat them with a heaping spoonful of salt. for instance, they don't count:

recent grads unable to find work in the profession

self-employed architects who may be under-performing or not working enough to be considered truly 'full time' earners.

staff which are furloughed and/or are working less than 40 hours per week with corresponding pay.

unemployed who simply don't file for unemployment benefits

unemployed who have exhausted their benefits (i tend to think there are more than a few in this category by now).

unemployed who have gone on to other full or part time work.

unemployed who have now declared themselves 'self employed' out of sheer necessity. they could easily be category 1 above.



there's a huge gulf between unemployment stats and the actual 'utilization' of a workforce. the latter is what counts in my book.

30% to 35% sounds consistent with everything I've heard. But some of the allied professons are doing better. Either AICP or APA - can't remember which one precisely - put the planners' unemployment rate at somewhere around 14% some 6 months ago (can't remember the exact number but it was somewhere around there). I saw a ULI report about 8 months ago that put the unemployment rate among real estate professionals at around 28%. Building and construction engineers were around 24% unemployed as of February (ENR magazine).

Even taking into account frustrated job seekers, I don't see how 5.9% could be realistic. That's lower than the economy as a whole (roughly 10%).

Yes, my informal survey has it pegged at 30-40%, and I think this figure underrates "underemployment" and salary cuts which are huge. Obviously it's regional, although I have not heard of any strong regions....

Well, I got a response from the Editor, I am curious if they look in to it, and more importantly print a follow up article perhaps.

Frankly I think it's another case of propaganda to ease the fears and anxiety about the economy...

the funniest thing is that ENR - a publication that shares an editorial team with Arch Record - has been regularly reporting 20%+ unemployment figures for engineers, architects and other associated categories.

I have requested from Abraham Mosisa (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) some backup data, his e-mail is:
Mosisa.Abraham@bls.gov

Well, if they are that far off with this profession, you have to wonder about that "official" national unemployment number. I have been saying for sometime it looks very suspicious that the national rate never broke the %10 rate.....

Our economy needs to add 100K jobs per month just to keep up with population growth.

Of course gov't statistics are manipulated. I don't so much care if that's what the feds are reporting or not. It's lazy writing for Record to print it. The people that write for them aren't even freakin' Architects and have no clue the reality out here.

Why is everyone so paranoid about unemployment figures? And propoganda? What?

Its NOT true that they don't count:

"recent grads unable to find work in the profession"

"unemployed who simply don't file for unemployment benefits"

"unemployed who have exhausted their benefits (i tend to think there are more than a few in this category by now)."

The BLS DOES calculate underutilized workers as a separate measurement, and they're pretty clear about how they measure unemployment.

The point is, its not important that the figure 5.9% intuitively seems too low for you. What is important is that the quantification technique/definitions are transparent and consistent, and how it is relative to other times. Combine that with the fact that they really don't measure those that stop actively looking for jobs, and you can get a better idea of whats going on out there in general.

The article was also clear that the "architecture and engineering occupations" category doesn't directly reflect the architecture industry as we see it.

For some f'ed up reason US calculates unemployment rates differently than rest of the developed nations. So 5% in US would really mean 9% in Canada etc...

Even if 100% of Americans were unemployed, the official number would hover between 0 and 50, on the account of people who have given up.

They should pay for billboards that say "Giving up. Your biggest contribution to the economy."

I recall me and slart having quite a heated discussion about this previously.

On top of that, If I recall correctly, the figures are compiled from employer surveys and also from telephone surverys.

I think the telephone survey sample is only 6,000 households. If they outsource those surveys to a private company, the sample may only realistically consist of people using traditional landlines or have publically published phone numbers (a.k.a. no cellphones or VOIP subscribers.)

Lastly, age brackets matter. The data may reflect Arch Records perceived readership-- i.e. ages 25-65. Age group 25-40 actually has relatively low unemployment, even in the recession, compared to the groups directly before and after that age range.

The under 25 crowd, including all varieties of unemployment, underemployment, jobless or non-reporting data points, places their unemployment rate somewhere around 39%-- 2 years ago, it was like 27%.

The 65+ crowd also is up around the mid 20%s excluding retirees.




I would call the process transparent and consistent-- however, I have two many issues with it; sampling is skewed and prone to error and the figures are mildly deceiving.

But, I would also say that other economy measures are also deceiving-- i.e., average income in United States is always expressed as household income rather than per capita income; delineating what exact constitutes an economic unit be it a couple, a family or an individual.

We also make comparisons between employment in the U.S. as a total dollar amount rather than as a total dollar amount divided by the number of annual work hours.

In that instance, France has a per capita income of about $43,000 dollars where as the U.S. has a per capita income of about $47,000.

The average work year in France is only 1645 hours versus the U.S.'s 2080 hours-- that gives France an average hourly wage of $26 compared to the U.S. who only rakes in ~$22.50. So, the question really is...

Would you rather work make $3000 more or have 435 hours more free time?

But this cycles back to what we choose to represent and how we choose to represent it.

Some interesting numbers you got there Unicorn. France v. US is a though provoking comparison.

I wish the legacy of this recession is 4 day weeks! I'll gladly take 20% cut for a more balanced life. Sadly, a lot of architecture professionals don't really have any interests or hobbies outside of the profession. The number of senior staff I've come across that willfully worked long hours in order to spend less time with spouses and children is much higher than it ever should be.

Unicorn - so thats who you were. Not that it matters now.

So I guess to make everyone happy, they should write a program that automatically translates raw data to reflect the "unemployment" rate as individuals define it. (so to truly be "objective", it has to be completely subjective?)

But do these rates do any good for us? Do we make different decisions based on what the percentage of unemployment is? Would you be more discouraged or encouraged based on percentage of unemployment?

I keep a job that I absolutely despise because of these numbers... 3 years ago I would leave it in a blink of an eye and spend next month looking for a "perfect job" in my leisure time...

Its 5.9% because most of the unemployed architects have exhausted therefore they do not count as unemployed anymore...

^exhausted their unemployment benefits

you sure that is why their exhausted.....?

yes, the US accounts for unemployment differently than most other countries, but that still doesn't excuse bad journalism. ENR (Arch Record's sister publication) has noted anecdotal evidence of very high (20-30%) real unemployment among building industry professionals for some time now. Do their journos not talk to each other?

doza - i second that.....i stayed with an AWFUL firm because i could see how bad it was (and because very few "bites" from potential employers were good enough to get beyond the point that i realized they were legitimate. in another life, i would have taken a couple side projects while i looked for a better office/location. so yes, i think those statistics make a difference. they help confirm or deny a decision to be careful or take a chance. what else WOULD they be for, Slartibartfast?

My guess is that many unemployed architects have taken jobs in other industries. I know many many many unemployed architects who are working full-time - but a lot of them are doing random administrative or office jobs.

Also, if the Gov't figures are way under, that is going to have a major impact on perception, as in allocation of stimulus dollars etc..so the irony is that because of the "official numbers" congress might very well think that the profession of architecture is doing quite well at just over half (5.9%) the national unemployment rate. I mean you can't make this stuff up.

According to the WSJ, Architects are one of (if not the number 1) hardest hit professions in the last two years. My informal survey w/ professionals confirms this.

I think a better read on the number of unemployed architects might be to look at the number of people whose wages came from architectural firms (or who filed as a self-employed architect) on last year's income tax forms vs. the number who file on this year's forms. Would still be an inexact science - the question of your profession is not one of the req'd boxes to fill out* - but should give a closer number. You could also assess how many people filing self-employment taxes as architects are earning incomes that designate them as below the poverty line, or below the average income line, or whatever. Would be an interesting study.

*although I kind of feel like we should all make a point to fill this box out, personally.

Unemployment stats can be deceiving because they fail to acknowledge people who have removed themselves from the labor pool.

A 5% unemployment rate is meaningless when the profession as a whole has shrunk. What about the 15% of the profession that is no longer practicing and have changed careers?

Imagine the arch. labor market like a tasty krispy kreme donut. The tasty goodness covered in frosting on the outside is 'employment' and the sad, empty center is 'unemployment'.

I would argue that the tasty goodness of our profession is getting smaller even though the relative size of the center (unemployment) appears, deceivingly small.

This is a tough analysis -- it's always been hard to obtain reliable data on employment trends in our industry.

Personally, I think it somewhat more instructive to look at "employment" figures - rather than "unemployment" data, which seems much more susceptible to misinterpretation.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the following employment estimates for Category 17-1011 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval:

2000: 62,010
2001: 72,760
2002: 87,770
2003: 91,010
2004: 94,280
2005: 96,740
2006: 101,010
2007: 106,830
2008: 110,990
2009: 101,630 (latest available)

Naturally, this is only a count of jobs -- it doesn't reflect the impact of paycuts or the reduction in work hours. Also, these figures do not include self-employed individuals - only jobs in firms.

Even so, it seems to me that empirical evidence would suggest that employment in our profession dropped by considerably more than 8% from 2008 to 2009.

I can't believe that employment expanded by almost 78% between 2000 and 2008. No firm I've worked for over the past 10 years expanded by that large of a margin in the 8 year boom time the BLS numbers show.

aqua ... well, I suppose it depends on where you practice ... our firm (located in a large southeastern metropolitan area) actually doubled in size over that time period. Some of the larger firms around here grew at even higher rates. Plus, in our area, many new firms emerged during the same time frame.

I'm reasonably comfortable with the overall expansion of the profession suggested by their numbers through 2008. I'm less confident their numbers accurately reflect the size of the decline thereafter.

So if we have a "peak" of around 110,000, has anyone tallied up all of these office closings, 1/2 staffing cuts etc...? For a relatively niche professional market, I can't believe there is not reliable data for this.

Does anyone think it's entirely possible that +40,000 architects have been laid off, went into other fields, or work on a very piece meal basis now?

I would think this would be of interest to students (no architecture schools have done a competent survey?) entering into the field.

I have suggested to a couple of online resources a survey around this topic might be a very telling, although not scientific, story. My survey would include:

- are you currently employed as a full time employee by an architecture firm?
- are you employed as a contractor with no benefits?
- are you employed on a part time basis?
- are you completely unemployed in the industry, is so for how long?
- have you taken a pay cut in the last 24 months, if so, what percentage of your salary?
- are you recent grad with no employment prospects?
- are you considering leaving the architecture profession?

so should i get a masters in engineering or fine art?

quizz - I do know of firms that grew by huge margins in the 2000's. Also know of firms that didn't even exsist in 2000. And yes, some of them are in places that saw rapid growth over the same time ~ Atlanta, Phoenix, etc.

That said, I'd say that for employment in the Architecture profession to remain in a relatively stable state the profession shouldn't be expanding faster than the GDP and/or population growth. Simply put, the overall economy did not see the growth the Architecture employment saw from 2000-08.

My hypothesis is that a lot of firms grew too rapidly. We had an Architecture bubble right along with real-estate. So, just like a developer building homes or condos thinking prices will always rise, I think firms expanded thinking clients would continue to demand more and more work.

Aqua-Ah, if it were just that simple. I think what really happened was this:

1. Design firms were offered lots of new work by existing and new clients.

2. Those design firms probably had an inkling that this represented a bubble. However, those same firms - ordinarily accustomed to looking under rocks for new work - faced the difficult choice between a) disappointing a client by turning down the extra work and seeing it go to competitors; or b) taking it on, even though that decision meant unsustainable growth.

3. Most firms chose b)

Given how hard it is to find new work in this profession, I am not at all surprised that most firms took on more than they could sustain. One might wish for more self-discipline, but somebody was going to get that work and I know very few principals who can turn their backs on a new project.