Thank you to 'ochona' for this bit of wisdom. I felt this wanted to be it's own topic, because it said so much. YES, OF COURSE. I'm not mocking ochona by saying it's obvious- it's one of those things that's so obvious to some, and so NOT obvious to others, and I've never heard it stated better than this.
So discuss- do you agree with this statement? Do you think it's ever worth it to work for someone who doesn't think you're worth much?
agree. but it's a mute point, since an employer's perception of your worth is "worthless".
or at least.. an employers perception of your worth in no way correlates to an employess worth as an architect/employee.
your employer might perceive that you are worth more, they just don't have the money to pay you that much. you are paid what the employer would like to 'buy' you for.
s/he might get a bargain if you don't know your own worth.
pay is generally more a reflection of your market value more than it is your individual value. seems like people who are willing to keep themselves commodities in the marketplace (interviewing often, changing jobs every few years, relocating as much as possible) end up commanding higher salaries than the people who stick with one company for decades.
pay and worth, while inter-related, are not a direct correlation.
i'd rather have a job that i really enjoy than ridiculously high pay with horrible hours.
that being said, i think the new method of worth comparison with regards to pay is, as nicomachean said, highly dependent on what they are able to pay you. i think scaling what you are paid in comparison to the higher ups in the firm is a better idea of what thet think you are worth than some arbitrary salary that someone else might be getting at a firm with billions.
I absolutely agree with you. Call it market value or whatever economic term that's used on the above posts; regardless it's what the employer thinks you are worth. That's in large part why I never worked for free or for a fee that was ridiculous.
What does it say about a person that is willing to accept a fee of $500/mo from a starchitect if we all know that just to pay rent (not even mortgage) is at least $1000/mo? I think that's very troubeling.
In short you are only worth as much as you say you are.
If a starchitect is only willing to pay you $500 a month I very much doubt it's a personal statement about your worth as an individual. As exploitive and unethical as it may be, it's purely a business move. They know they can get away with it and if a few people turn their noses up at the measly pay, there's always a stack of hundreds of other resumes from overeager, overqualified fresh faces.
no, it's a statement that you're worth exactly as much as the other people at your level in the office, which is not much. That's just relegating a whole level of employees to the 'worthless' pile, which is worse than just one, not a good excuse for doing it. That's saying that interns or recent grads are worthless, but watch the office function without them. It's not pretty. My office is actually quite topheavy right now, and it's hard because the older guys aren't very good drafters, they feel too important to try, and the few lower level people get so much put on them that we never, ever get a break from the computer. Entry level people bring more to the office than bosses realize.
i agree with heterarchy -- there is no real link between what an employer THINKS you're worth and what YOU think you're worth ... or what you ARE worth.
extends to the architect / client relationship and really to the relationship between our profession and society as a whole. people will pay for what they consider to be important. there are negotiables and nonnegotiables.
gas...people may bitch and moan about the price of it but: there they are, at the gas pump, paying an extra $100 a week to fill up that hummer. but ask them to pay an extra $100 a YEAR in sales taxes for a light rail system (austin)...
To my employer I'm worth: As much as he can make from me.
Because it's usch a polarized situation; there's only one conclusion: I'm worth 1)What I'm allowing my self to be payed 2)What my employer is paying me.
Because if I say: "Yes, it's okay Mr. Frank Ghery if you pay $500/mo." I'm intrinsically saying that's whatI'm worth to you and that's okay. Therefor admitting I'm worth $500/mo.
For the most part I agree. Continually I argue that accepting low pay just to work for a Stararchitect is doing great harm to the profession. If someone can "get away" with paying sub-standard wages they are showing that pay has no correlation with value of the employee. This I find very destructive to the profession.
Pay should always always always directly reflect your value and worth to the firm. At least as long as architecture is practiced in a free market. If your pay has nothing to do with the value of the employee where is in incentive for the said employee to work hard, advance career, etc.
I think employers would always want to keep a tight correlation between pay and value of employee to keep a happy and productive staff. Ever noticed how low paying/poor benefit offices have higher turnover? Most people leave jobs for better pay.
Problem is that we as architects don't always look for that monetary compensation. My argument is that no experice is good but doesn't out weight compensation. Arguing that the experience working for a stararchitect at sub standard pay is worth more than the pay is like saying it was ok to own slaves because they learned farming practices.
The employer's perception of what you're worth may or may not have much to do with how much they bill your time for.
Employer-dude knows what the 'going rate' is for your experience. Regardless of what they make off of you, you're always gonna be their cash cow (if they are a well managed company). In other words, they could be billing you @ $125/hr, but if you're willing to take $30, then they win & you lose. You're always gonns make less than the billed rate, but the key is to get as close to it as possible.
Please everyone: If n employer is trying to sucker you into slave wages...walk. There IS someone out there who will pay what you want, or close to it while offering the kind of work you want...or close to it.
A true story:
Right after graduation, two friends traveled to a foreign country to work in architectural offices. Both had multiple employment offers. One chose to work in a corporate office which paid a handsome wage and offered convenient working hours. The other chose a position in a small design oriented office which paid much less than conventional wisdom indicated, and the hours were long.
In the near term, the corporate job did not offer much responsibility and the guy got laid off after about 6 months because the economy tanked. He returned to his home country and started working for a developer. The guy in the small office gained responsibility and weathered the recession with the firm, staying for a couple of years.
Fifteen years later each is making similar pay and they work in the same city. The corporate guy stuck with the developer and watches a lot of TV because he likes his big screen plasma. The other guy got into a competive grad program. Now he teaches design studio and has his own firm.
Remember salary is not a one-way street as many of you describe. You have to give something to your employer for a value to be calculated for your individual worth. My experience is that most have issues with their pay and think that they are undervalued (i am no exception). I find it bizzare that the staff that moan the most are the ones not worthy of their current value let alone an increase.
an ex-employer of mine was honest and/or stupid enough to reveal that, in his opinion, interns are more of a liability than an asset until they've been out of school at least three years.
of course to him, being a liability meant having an independent mind and not expending all one's time trying to learn to read his mind, which would have been pointless anyway because he was always changing it.
this was the same person who said, "i don't like hiring m.arch graduates, they tend to do more thinking than doing. i need doing, not thinking. i do the thinking."
this was in a job interview with someone who had an m.arch from virginia tech.
so: make sure your employer has the, um, correct perception of your worth. or find a new one. i did!
everyone is entitled to set a price for their his or her own services ... just like manufacturers are entitled to set a price for the products they produce ... the purchaser is equally entitled to accept or reject that price as providing "good value" or "poor value" ... in the end, the buyer and the seller get together ... or they don't ...
discussions of this nature bore me because so many seem to feel that architecture is a "hobby" that should provide us a great living in the absence of appropriate productivity ... I think we all have to ask ourselves two questions: 1. what value do I bring to my job each and every day; and 2. how can I help my employer recognize how that value supports and advances the work of the firm ...
Sep 16, 05 10:58 am ·
·
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.
pay is, in a way, a reflection of your employer's perception of your worth.
Thank you to 'ochona' for this bit of wisdom. I felt this wanted to be it's own topic, because it said so much. YES, OF COURSE. I'm not mocking ochona by saying it's obvious- it's one of those things that's so obvious to some, and so NOT obvious to others, and I've never heard it stated better than this.
So discuss- do you agree with this statement? Do you think it's ever worth it to work for someone who doesn't think you're worth much?
agree. but it's a mute point, since an employer's perception of your worth is "worthless".
or at least.. an employers perception of your worth in no way correlates to an employess worth as an architect/employee.
yawn
the amount of time i spend on archinect probably says something about my worth as an employee.
your employer might perceive that you are worth more, they just don't have the money to pay you that much. you are paid what the employer would like to 'buy' you for.
s/he might get a bargain if you don't know your own worth.
pay is generally more a reflection of your market value more than it is your individual value. seems like people who are willing to keep themselves commodities in the marketplace (interviewing often, changing jobs every few years, relocating as much as possible) end up commanding higher salaries than the people who stick with one company for decades.
pay and worth, while inter-related, are not a direct correlation.
i'd rather have a job that i really enjoy than ridiculously high pay with horrible hours.
that being said, i think the new method of worth comparison with regards to pay is, as nicomachean said, highly dependent on what they are able to pay you. i think scaling what you are paid in comparison to the higher ups in the firm is a better idea of what thet think you are worth than some arbitrary salary that someone else might be getting at a firm with billions.
rationalist,
I absolutely agree with you. Call it market value or whatever economic term that's used on the above posts; regardless it's what the employer thinks you are worth. That's in large part why I never worked for free or for a fee that was ridiculous.
What does it say about a person that is willing to accept a fee of $500/mo from a starchitect if we all know that just to pay rent (not even mortgage) is at least $1000/mo? I think that's very troubeling.
In short you are only worth as much as you say you are.
If a starchitect is only willing to pay you $500 a month I very much doubt it's a personal statement about your worth as an individual. As exploitive and unethical as it may be, it's purely a business move. They know they can get away with it and if a few people turn their noses up at the measly pay, there's always a stack of hundreds of other resumes from overeager, overqualified fresh faces.
no, it's a statement that you're worth exactly as much as the other people at your level in the office, which is not much. That's just relegating a whole level of employees to the 'worthless' pile, which is worse than just one, not a good excuse for doing it. That's saying that interns or recent grads are worthless, but watch the office function without them. It's not pretty. My office is actually quite topheavy right now, and it's hard because the older guys aren't very good drafters, they feel too important to try, and the few lower level people get so much put on them that we never, ever get a break from the computer. Entry level people bring more to the office than bosses realize.
i agree with heterarchy -- there is no real link between what an employer THINKS you're worth and what YOU think you're worth ... or what you ARE worth.
extends to the architect / client relationship and really to the relationship between our profession and society as a whole. people will pay for what they consider to be important. there are negotiables and nonnegotiables.
gas...people may bitch and moan about the price of it but: there they are, at the gas pump, paying an extra $100 a week to fill up that hummer. but ask them to pay an extra $100 a YEAR in sales taxes for a light rail system (austin)...
Let's brake it down like this:
To my self I'm worth: No limit
To my employer I'm worth: As much as he can make from me.
Because it's usch a polarized situation; there's only one conclusion: I'm worth 1)What I'm allowing my self to be payed 2)What my employer is paying me.
Because if I say: "Yes, it's okay Mr. Frank Ghery if you pay $500/mo." I'm intrinsically saying that's whatI'm worth to you and that's okay. Therefor admitting I'm worth $500/mo.
surfing the web all day is, in effect, showing a lack of respect for the lack of respect shown to me, vis a vis my pay.
For the most part I agree. Continually I argue that accepting low pay just to work for a Stararchitect is doing great harm to the profession. If someone can "get away" with paying sub-standard wages they are showing that pay has no correlation with value of the employee. This I find very destructive to the profession.
Pay should always always always directly reflect your value and worth to the firm. At least as long as architecture is practiced in a free market. If your pay has nothing to do with the value of the employee where is in incentive for the said employee to work hard, advance career, etc.
I think employers would always want to keep a tight correlation between pay and value of employee to keep a happy and productive staff. Ever noticed how low paying/poor benefit offices have higher turnover? Most people leave jobs for better pay.
Problem is that we as architects don't always look for that monetary compensation. My argument is that no experice is good but doesn't out weight compensation. Arguing that the experience working for a stararchitect at sub standard pay is worth more than the pay is like saying it was ok to own slaves because they learned farming practices.
The employer's perception of what you're worth may or may not have much to do with how much they bill your time for.
Employer-dude knows what the 'going rate' is for your experience. Regardless of what they make off of you, you're always gonna be their cash cow (if they are a well managed company). In other words, they could be billing you @ $125/hr, but if you're willing to take $30, then they win & you lose. You're always gonns make less than the billed rate, but the key is to get as close to it as possible.
Please everyone: If n employer is trying to sucker you into slave wages...walk. There IS someone out there who will pay what you want, or close to it while offering the kind of work you want...or close to it.
A true story:
Right after graduation, two friends traveled to a foreign country to work in architectural offices. Both had multiple employment offers. One chose to work in a corporate office which paid a handsome wage and offered convenient working hours. The other chose a position in a small design oriented office which paid much less than conventional wisdom indicated, and the hours were long.
In the near term, the corporate job did not offer much responsibility and the guy got laid off after about 6 months because the economy tanked. He returned to his home country and started working for a developer. The guy in the small office gained responsibility and weathered the recession with the firm, staying for a couple of years.
Fifteen years later each is making similar pay and they work in the same city. The corporate guy stuck with the developer and watches a lot of TV because he likes his big screen plasma. The other guy got into a competive grad program. Now he teaches design studio and has his own firm.
Good story however, you show me a corporate drone and I'll show you a valued cog in the corporate machine.
Remember salary is not a one-way street as many of you describe. You have to give something to your employer for a value to be calculated for your individual worth. My experience is that most have issues with their pay and think that they are undervalued (i am no exception). I find it bizzare that the staff that moan the most are the ones not worthy of their current value let alone an increase.
an ex-employer of mine was honest and/or stupid enough to reveal that, in his opinion, interns are more of a liability than an asset until they've been out of school at least three years.
of course to him, being a liability meant having an independent mind and not expending all one's time trying to learn to read his mind, which would have been pointless anyway because he was always changing it.
this was the same person who said, "i don't like hiring m.arch graduates, they tend to do more thinking than doing. i need doing, not thinking. i do the thinking."
this was in a job interview with someone who had an m.arch from virginia tech.
so: make sure your employer has the, um, correct perception of your worth. or find a new one. i did!
"correct perception of your worth" - YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!
everyone is entitled to set a price for their his or her own services ... just like manufacturers are entitled to set a price for the products they produce ... the purchaser is equally entitled to accept or reject that price as providing "good value" or "poor value" ... in the end, the buyer and the seller get together ... or they don't ...
discussions of this nature bore me because so many seem to feel that architecture is a "hobby" that should provide us a great living in the absence of appropriate productivity ... I think we all have to ask ourselves two questions: 1. what value do I bring to my job each and every day; and 2. how can I help my employer recognize how that value supports and advances the work of the firm ...
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.