Silber ... I predict you're not going to like, or appreciate, what I'm about to write. But please, put on your business hat for a moment and try to think objectively about what follows.

Every business experiences some sort of relationship between its revenue stream and its cost of production. The size of the gap between those two elements determines a firm's profitability.

It is an established fact that labor in our profession is inexpensive today ... just as it was an established fact back in late 2007 & early 2008 that labor in our profession was tremendously expensive. Like so much else in life, costs fluctuate.

Be honest -- ask yourself if you would pay $25 for a haircut when, at a similar shop down the street, you could buy essentially the same haircut for $20. If you're being objective, you'll probably say you'd go for the lower price. Does that make you evil -- or does that make you a savvy purchaser?

The same rationale is true in our world. When a firm can maintain its revenues at a decent level and then lower its cost of production, profits rise and the owners of the business -- who manage the enterprise and carry the risk of operations -- can do very well. And, in my opinion, that doesn't mean such firm is taking unfair advantage of its employees or treating them abusively -- any more than you would be abusing your haircutter by opting for a lower price down the street.

I - for one - would never use unpaid labor and abhor those firms that do. Moreover, our firm supplies all of our employees with a comprehensive benefits package, to which they make no financial contribution. But, when I'm presented with two candidates offering comparable skills and experience, why would I ever hire the one asking for $5 more per hour? To do so would violate my fiduciary responsibility to the firm.

In a perfect world, a firm should be enlightened enough to share some of its profits with its employees, in proportion to their true contribution. We try to do so in our practice. But, like so much else in architecture, that judgement (i.e. what constitutes "true contribution") is subjective and open to some debate.

I find it odd that we complain bitterly here about the lack of business skills present among the owners of design firms and rue the economic potential available in our careers. Yet, when a firm actually does well and rewards its owners handsomely for the results they produce, we somehow find that evil and abusive.

It is - I suppose - a matter of perspective, based on where one sits.

labor in our profession was never 'tremendously expensive' even in 2008-2009. even then, an architect with some experience at a large firm in a us city could hope to maybe clear six figures, which is not really comparable to other professional disciplines.

2007-2008, rather

elinor - I meant 'tremendously expensive' in a relative, not an absolute, sense. During that period of time, new staff was very hard to find and those available commanded wages all out of proportion to their true productivity. Many of those hires were the first to go when layoffs became necessary.

But, I get - and respect - your point.

i understand, i just wish architects would stop thinking a 'good' wage is what is average/offered in this field and start looking at actual costs of living and put a real value on their skills...

i would actually argue that even then, most commanded wages that were TOO LOW for their true productivity...even those that were relatively well-paid.

elinor - well - that's a much bigger problem, with much deeper roots, than you and I are likely to figure out and resolve in our lifetimes.

probably true. i heard a student recently say, when asked what (objectively) a REALLY high salary was, '55 thousand dollars'.

i also heard someone with several years' experience who was making mid-40s say she thought she was doing 'really well'. i know it's a recession, but it just made me angry.

you'd think that working at smaller offices is good for getting broader experience on projects - and it is in some ways, but you start to realize after a while why some firms have stayed small even though they've been around forever... either they're purposefully small (i.e. owner only takes on a handful of projects a year) - or something else... usually something else.

quiz - I understand your haircut analogy, but I think it's a little disheartening to hear that you're reducing us to specific skills and certain kinds of experience - as if personality doesn't matter. probably doesn't make good business sense, but I'd pay a little extra just because i prefer getting my haircut with someone who doesn't reek of cigs and can carry a conversation... I'd still be getting the same haircut - the stinky $20 robot could even give me a slightly better cut, but if I'm going to be sitting in a chair for 30 minutes I don't want to smell ashtray and listen to heavy breathing the entire time.

although maybe that's why you're the boss and I'm not.

Why there are not equal opportunities for people. There are always some or the other problems going around. Sometimes recession or company wages etc...
vpn trial

I looked quick, but did not find this at hbr.org

jbushkey: here ya' go:

Fool vs. Jerk: Whom Would You Hire?

I think the discussion about the quality of the work and the wages is very pertinent to the topic. I don't want to repeat what was already said. I can make an example. Concretely, I have been doing CAD all day today withount having the chance to talk to almost anybody at all. I really find it hard to say I like it and that this is what I studied and worked for. And this is my typical day for the last 3 months. The only thing better than unemployment is the paycheck (low paycheck). I do it because I have to and I am forced to it, but when I am out of here I start breathing again. I would not encourage a young person to start this career right now based on my experience.
This type of working environment is really compromising the worker quality of life overall.