Looking through the salary poll, it seems that there are few who make over $100k. Now, I know that architecture is not a very high paying job, but are there any architects who make salaries well into 6 digits?
well .... depends on the firm you work in and of course your experience counts for a lot ... but yeah .. there are plenty who makes well into the 6digits..
I know an architect that does make over $260,000 a year. He works 4 days a week as an anesthesiologist at a local general hospital, nothing too flashy, and works one day a week as a sole practitionar architect where he makes about $10,000 a year. He always wanted to be an architect but was not into that starving artis lifestyle. So he took some wise dicisions, went to medical school, made enough money to do architecture as a hobby.
six-figure base compensation is fairly common among individuals who own a part of the firm (*) ... however, such compensation typically happens only after long years in the profession and typically only after such people demonstrate proven abilities that are highly valuable to the firm ... such individuals also have significant exposure to liabilities that non-owners don't face, such as personal loan-guarantees, personal lease guarantees, personal exposure to E&O claims, etc.
in some very large firms, non-owners who run departements or large studios, or even very large projects, also may earn base compensation in excess of $100k ... also, it's not uncommon for the leader of a significant non-design function -- such as marketing or HR or accounting -- to earn at or above $100k
"I would assume principals make huge amounts of money' ... it is all relative I suppose ... sure, a six-figure income seems huge if you're entry level ... and, it does afford a fairly nice life ... but, given how hard we all work and the risks we face, I don't know a lot of principals who believe they're paid either fairly or well, especially compared to our counterparts in law and medicine.
(*) however, I know quite a few owners of mid to small firms who earn between $70-90k ... so, ownership per se is not necessarily the ticket to riches ... there's more to it than that.
Yup, to get big bucks you gotta bring in big bucks. It's not talent, or architectural talent, when you get to that level, it's all business and schmoozing.
I am sure they are making a good living, but I remember when I was at Gensler right after grad school and saw what the partners were driving - a 10 year old Lexus SC300 and an old 530. Now, cars aren't everything, of course, but they are one of the easiest ways to judge a persons financial status.
I just couldn't get over that. I figured if you were a partner in such a large firm, you'd be making HUGE dollars. Guess not.
Everyone, in almost any profession, has the potential to make tons, it's just that the average in architecture is so low. It's like a small lottery as to whether you'll make past $100k.
I've always thought that when you're in a position to run your own practice, it is like any business. You can do poorly, and many people do, but if you're a good businessperson, you can do really well.
We have this impression that one cannot make good money in architecture ... or, that you have to do bad buildings in order to earn big ... or we need to be unpleasant and think only about business. I don't believe any of this needs to be the case.
I know a guy who brings home about $600k each year from a smallish practice (12-15 people) ... I have no reason to believe he takes advantage of his staff (he has no problem hiring good people and they tend to stay with him for a long time) ... he does good work, mostly renovating existing structures ... how does he do it ... he works very, very hard; he's really good working with his clients; he has established a good reputation that brings him a lot of repeat work (it's like he has a "brand" here in our community ...
and (now pay attention ... this is the key) he charges large fees and walks away from work that doesn't have good fees
oh ... and I've never seen him drive a brand new car and he never drives anything fancier than a Volvo
Not saying cars are what counts at all, just that when you don't know anything else, it's one way of guessing.
e - yes, it's a great talent, that's what I was trying to get at that people can make bank in any profession, given the right business savvy and the right conditions (ie luck).
But 99% don't.
don't judge a person by the car they drive...read "The Wealthy Barber" or "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". what you see is not always what you get...and you may not make $100k a year, but there are ways to make your money work for you-if you want to be successful start learning how to take care of your financial portfolio and make that successful.
I honestly think that, as you've read before, this is an old person's practice. It takes time to get good, get the clients that come back and establish a reputation that speaks of credibility, skill and experience. I don't consider my self old but I must say even in the last two years the work comes to us more than I have to go find it, and its good work that pays well. I don't charge out rageous amounts, just scale as per the local association requests. But what changes over time is the quality of the client. They respect what you do and expect to be paid fairly for assisting them. Its tough to do when you are starting out, but you're only as good as your last project / client so pick good ones or be prepared to wait for the right one.
We do well for a small firm ( well into the 6-figure range ) and we are only 5 people. Its taken time but it isn't that difficult if you want to work hard to get it right. As for material things I have to say that I pouredmy initial financial gains back into the office, aside from buying my own house for my family, and didn't worry about me too much ( that's just a personal decision) and didn't own a new car til I turned 40. I don't take many holidays but don't consider that I live like a monk either. I can see that in a short time (5 yrs ) I can start to improve on the car and holidays but not before establishing a well tuned office with a strong client base. Its a short term sacrifice when you're young for a long term gain, every job, every work experience builds on the last and establishes your network .... look in the rear view mirror from the end of your career.... what does that look like, then make the choices that you would be proud of.
i like the advice from whistler that you should concentrate on picking the right clients or waiting for the right ones. Its really hard to learn how to say no to jobs and saying no is a really tough lesson to learn because who knows if more work will come or not. I work for a small firm and my boss hustles but he jumps on everything and alot of it turns out to be bs that doesnt get past schematic sketches.
you'd be surprised how many architects make six fig's and up. The ones making the insane money (like 600+) are a select few who have a "specialty". Some of the top renderers out there specially watercolor...are up there.
I work for a large corp. firm and the base salary for a VP is well above the 150 mark. Sure most of the earnings pottential depends on what kind of revenue you are bringing in, but there are some who are just designers...and don't do a whole lot of "shmoozing"
On another front...my dad is an architect who had his own firm for many years (small firm 6-10ppl). He was certainly making well into the mid-six figs. for a long time, but all at what price? he eventually gave it all up, and went back to school...teach...govmt' job with no liability/headaches. He now has time to build a house here another there (for creative outlet)...travel...paint...etc. Sometimes to make alot of $$ = selling your sould to the dev...il...I mean dev...elopers!
The most respectable route is to build a successful well respected practice...sacrifice certain things in your life to develop others. The kind of practice where you can refuse some clients...for the ones who will allow you to produce the best possible work.
I agree that in most larger firms anyone that has reached the level of partner/principal is probably in the 6 figure range. As the original poster questioned the salary poll, I do as well. The last time I went through there it seemed that there were plenty of people in that range at quite young ages. Granted, there isn't much control over that poll and it doesn't tell the whole story. From my experience, even in large offices, it's very rare for someone younger than their mid-40's to be in the $100k + salary range.
Still, $100k doesn't buy that nice of a life anymore. Most dual income couples earn in excess of $100k and are living paycheck to paycheck. That kind of wage won't exactly elevate you to the big leagues.
No, $100k certainly won't make you rich by any means. As my dad always says, 'the only way to make money is to work for yourself'.
Still, though, and please feel free to jump in here, this discussion sounds like it's easily in the grasp of the average architect to make well into the 6 digits. Can't say I agree with that, but others on here know a lot more about that than I ever will.
The large firms I've been at have a partner ratio of about 1/10-1/50, or somewhere like that, making it very hard and rare to get to that ponit. I know of a few firms that outsource things and are top heavy, but they have the connections and experience to make it work (ie worked at many large firms as top management before starting their own firm).
Point being, it's difficult and rare for to be a partner or even have a firm that can sustain itself. So many varialbes involved for business success, not to mention stress (I certainly couldn't be going that way if I had a family).
If you're living paycheck to paycheck off 100k it's because you're making poor spending decisions, not because you're not making enough money. People start off in the 30k range and really are living paycheck to paycheck but then as they start earning more they keep buying more...bigger houses, nicer cars, excessive amounts of clothing, furniture, housewares, and gadgets.
bryan4arch,
I'm not sure whether you can say it's poor spending decision. Sure, people buy bigger house and cars, but not all of them are doing that to show off; we all get married, need bigger house for kids (which leads to more property tx), paying off student loans, mortgages, kids' expense, car payments, etc. Plus, if you live in either NYC, SF, or Boston, cost of living is considerably higher than other places. Sure, I remember when I was paid $30k and lived paycheck to paycheck, but that was when I lived by myself in studio in some nasty neighborhood. You can't expect everyone to live at that condition of living forever.
But again, gee I wish I make $100k! :D
paycheck to paycheck is almost always ( i generally hate making generalizations <---like that one) a result of planning or spending decisions. I don't care how much you make, you must live within your means. I don't make much money at all, but I certainly don't live paycheck to paycheck, my neighborhood is great, and I'm not mal-nourished. Do you really need that big of a house? new car? to go to a super expensive grad school? Get a double wide, buy an old station wagon... (I didn't use the word "poor" in reference to planning or spending decisions, because some are quite deliberate in being in extreme debt and living paycheck to paycheck)... it can always be controlled. blah blah blah
Living on 100K is great if you are single or DINK (Dual Income-No Kids), but try living in a large city with children on that salary! Housing costs almost make that level of household salary a necessity these days. "Paycheck to paycheck" is a reality when you have grad school loans, a mortgage, and infant daycare to pay.
I would say the 600K figure is definitely possible, depending on the firm and the market you are in. The partners in my firm drive fancy cars, wear expensive suits, and live in multi-million dollar homes.
I live paycheck to paycheck in Boston. I spend almost nothing: no new clothes, no shoes, no books, nothing. I have a comfortable existence without material possessions and choose to deal with the cost of living here for the time being because I would rather be poor in an interesting city than rich back home in suburban orange county. I will not be able to keep this up forever, of course, but for the time being it's worth it. As my monthly expenditures are literally no more than food, rent split 4 ways with roommates, enormous student loans, utilities, and transportation, and I had a reasonably high salary for my age in architecture in this city, I think you are wrong, AP, that paycheck-to-paycheck is a result of spending decisions.
Most other people I know in their mid-20s operate the same way: thrifty and w/ no ability to save. It seems like for every one of us the reason is high student loans.
I agree with myriam. (I live in Boston, too)
I don't have a car, live in tiny 1-bed, and didn't go to super expensive school, but still it's hard to make living here in Boston. I chose to live here in Boston, so I don't complain about that fact, but I have to say that paycheck to paycheck is not always a result of poor spending decision.
spending and planning decisions, myriam. and again, not poor spending and planning decisions, but choices, nevertheless, that were made along the way. As you described, you "choose to deal with the cost of living here for the time being because..." and you also chose to go to a grad school that would leave you in a certain degree of debt (I will likely make that same decision in the near future).
All I mean to say is that all of these things are matters of choice.
Yeah... I worked out a new budget the other day to allow for increased student loans monthly payments, and I figured on aiming for $100 of groceries and $100 of restaurants for a 15 day period (this is to see if I can have some money left over from the month for savings, for once). Then I went to the grocery store. I bought essentials, on sale, mostly store-brands: vegetables, meats, yogurt, things like that. The total was $134. I ran the receipt past my mom, back in California, to make sure I wasn't crazy. Sure enough, items tended to be 1.25 times what she just paid back in Orange County--the SAME brands, same items, etc. The grocery store here is literally the same or sometimes MORE expensive than the 4 convenience stores around my home and office. CONVENIENCE stores. This was the local chain, not, btw, Whole Foods.
Now you try saving money in that situation. I didn't even get enough food for 15 days, aggravatingly. I'll need more meat, dairy, and bread before then.
ya, my first post had tinges of sarcasm...but the principle is the same. We put ourselves in these situations, whatever they may be... I'm not calling anyone short-sighted etc.
I did not go to grad school. I have B.Arch undergrand and it is not ivy league, for the record. My parents are middle class (teacher and retired car mechanic) and the in-state school choice (CalPoly SLO) actually ended up being MORE expensive than the package I got from my private school. It's almost impossible to go to architecture school from a mid-middle class background and not end up with huge loans. I worked during school, too, btw.
I do not believe that given that type of background--the most common background in America--it is at all possible to get a professional architectural education without paying a LOT of money.
Yes, I could have "planned" not to become an architect. But that defeats your point, doesn't it?
I did choose to live in Boston, but once you start saying, ok well having a decent living is only possibly in certain places, or in certain fields, in America... well you're kind of taking your "planning" argument to a ridiculous level. Not everyone can "plan" to be a doctor in an exurb.
AP, that's my point, though. I did not choose to be born to an immigrant mechanic with no high school education--but I was. We do not have control over everything in our lives. Personal decisions make a difference but the fact of the matter is that people's lives and situations are unequal in this country, their opportunities are as well, and that restricts the choices available to them in the first place.
Also, once again you have to recognize that there is some level of freedom of being given up in each choice: not all choices are an equal playing field, I'm saying. This is hard to explain because I am REALLY sick today. Urgh.
and in fact, I almost envy your situation, myriam. my initial post-school plan was to move to Boston and work...but I sacrificed that wish for a variety of reasons...
i agree with AP. it is mostly, but not always, about choices. we chose what to study and where to go to school. we chose were to live and where to work. we chose whether to have kids or not. i am not rich, but i do okay. i probably work harder than most [not including the fine folks at archinect], but i'm fine with that choice.
the younger we are, the less choice we have though. we can not chose our family. we can not chose the opportunities that our parents can afford/provide to us. things like this can affect the number of choices you have as you get older.
oh that's a shame, wish I'd read that back when. It's pretty easy to get a job up here--once you're already up here. Kind of ridiculously easy, actually. There're even two architectural temp agencies that are GREAT to get your foot in the door and experience a wide variety of firms while being paid like $18/hour for basic cadding. I mean if you're still interested let me know.
actually, aside from the immigrant part, our backgrounds share some similarity - Mom was a flight attendant for most of my childhood, Dad a self-employed auto mechanic (still is, gettin' kinda old for it, though). I benefitted from Florida's scholarship program, and therefore have a reasonable amount of debt to deal with from public school undergrad...I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree with any of it. I am putting off my potential paycheck to paycheck existance for after grad school. Like I said, i will make that choice in the near future. I wanted to set up a 401k first, and spend some quality time with siblings, young and old...before I took that trip...
Right, e, I agree. The thing is, your choices only begin to be broadened post-school; until that point you are pretty much at the mercy of family/society. So the biggest problem with this schema, as the book I referenced above pointed out, is that this used to be fine back in the old days when your mostly pre-determined, very narrowly chosen college shunted you out into the real world fresh and ready to begin your lifetime of choosing/planning. Nowadays when we reach that beginning point of choice-making, we start right out with a huge negative hole to fill FROM the beginning, at the point at which we are supposed to be learning to make good choices. You never really get a chance to do it right.
A big problem in this country is the cost of education, which continues to vastly outstrip inflation and with no justifiable reasoning. I don't have a choice in the fact that all colleges are hugely expensive (except to not go to a college at all, which REALLY dooms one to a paycheck-to-paycheck lifetime existence). See what I mean?
The problem is exacerbated for architects because we have an extremely limited number of scholastic accessways to the profession in the first place. In fact, in almost every state you can't even become an architect anymore without going to school, so there goes that choice right there. So, given that you have to go to school, the fastest and therefore cheapest way is to do a B.Arch. You're lucky if any school in your state even offers that. For example, in my state it was SLO only (Pomona too but the cost is the same). As I noted above this ended up being more expensive than my cheapest private school alternative, thus the decision was made for me based on economy.
I just don't think you can do it any differently nowadays. And yet I still come out with so much debt and so little comparitive pay that life is very expensive.
I disagree that being broke on 100k is bad decisions. Think of an average family with two kids, two cars and a decent suburban home of approx 2500sq ft. Dual income at somewhere around $120k. That puts you into a pretty high tax bracket and with health insurance and all the other income deducations they'll have around $60k net. Then factor in around $2500/month for the house - $2k mortgage and $500 utilities. That's being conservative, but it eats up $30k. Then the cars at $1000/month. Again very conservative but poof goes $12k. We are already down to a disposable $1500/month and I don't think those expenses are anywhere out of line for the average American family, nor the worst decisions. Gotta have a decent house for the family and cars to get to work.
Additionally, $100k is extrememly rare for an architect. The AIA salary figures show it. In your average firm those making 6 figures is under 10%. Yes, it's obtainable, but I wouldn't promise it to anyone...even the hard worker.
Another thing to note, given the Boston discussion, is that in architecture there isn't pay equity that equals cost of living. A recent grad in Boston or NYC isn't going to earn the equivalent in higher living costs vs. that recent grad in Omaha. Granted, the pay in Omaha is probably less, but not by the same factor the cost of living is less. Young architects have to really love the expensive cities because financially, they'd be ahead to be living in the smaller less expensive cities.
Thanks for the well wishes! I understand where you're coming from. But look at what you yourself note: You will have a paycheck-to-paycheck post-education life, n'est-ce pas? And you cannot become an architect without that grad school. Thus, ipso facto, you don't really have a choice in the fact that you are going to be stuck living at the bottom of the economy.
I don't mean to be argumentative, in fact I appreciate your thoughtful points. I find this interesting, I have thought about it a LOT. ("Did I really fuck up? Where did I go wrong? How come everyone else I know is screwed, too?" etc.etc.)
Depending on what part of the country you're in I think a lot of people making less than 40 or 50k don't have much choice about living paycheck to paycheck, no matter how well they plan. You get to a point where there are only so many expenses you can cut out or cut back without being pushed into unreasonable choices.
I'm more concerned about people making 100k and living paycheck to paycheck. People above mentioned kids as a reason, but there are a lot of people with virtually no income raising kids relatively successfully. Even with kids you have choices. Public vs. private schools; having one parent stay home vs. daycare; staying in a small house/apt. vs. upsizing. The fact that so many middle class kids are being raised thinking they're entitled to private education, exotic vacations, designer clothes, expensive toys, a brand new car upon reaching age 16, and their own private bedroom full of electronics is part of what got our country in this economic mess in the first place.
As for student loan debt (and I've said this a million times on this forum whenever anybody brings up the subject), you shouldn't be in a big rush to pay it back. I know it feels crushing, but the benefits from putting "extra" income toward paying off credit card debt or toward retirement savings will be much greater.
well, as I see it, I have the choice of attending UF for grad school (my undergrad). I know my in-state earning potential wouldn't be affected by that choice, nor my ability to get a job in state or otherwise. My debt would be significantly less though, by far (cheaper, significant tuition waivers/GTA position stipends/scholarships for many UF u-grads returning for grad...). Also, there are many other public and private schools, from what I've learned, that offer full tuition waivers etc. to qualified applicants . . . . . .
BUT...
at this point, it is likely (although not certain) that I will make a grad school choice that will leave me in more than the necessarry amount of debt. That will be a choice, perhaps a sacrifice.
So, that potential paycheck to paycheck life will be by choice, but not my only choice...I could still become a licensed architect and sacrifice big city life until thereafter, once my earning potential is greater and I've had the chance to save up etc.
but, like you and so many others, I wanna live in Urbania...
Good point AP. I went to state schools that offered cheaper options. So far it hasn't hurt my earning potential and helped ease the pain from costs of living. Simple fact is that living in America isn't as cheap as many like to believe it is. The $41k average salary in America isn't going to provide the life you see on television. Neither will $100k. You have to enter this profession because you love it, and not for what you can earn in it. That's what I tell high school career classes. I don't lie. They always ask what you can earn, and I always tell them if you are asking that you really aren't that serious.
High salaries?
Looking through the salary poll, it seems that there are few who make over $100k. Now, I know that architecture is not a very high paying job, but are there any architects who make salaries well into 6 digits?
well .... depends on the firm you work in and of course your experience counts for a lot ... but yeah .. there are plenty who makes well into the 6digits..
I know an architect that does make over $260,000 a year. He works 4 days a week as an anesthesiologist at a local general hospital, nothing too flashy, and works one day a week as a sole practitionar architect where he makes about $10,000 a year. He always wanted to be an architect but was not into that starving artis lifestyle. So he took some wise dicisions, went to medical school, made enough money to do architecture as a hobby.
^^ sigh .....
I would assume principals make huge amounts of money
they do .... wellat least most of them ... + you gotta have a good established practice for that .
many firms that i worked for does interiors aswell ... it's faster and better, financialy speaking.
six-figure base compensation is fairly common among individuals who own a part of the firm (*) ... however, such compensation typically happens only after long years in the profession and typically only after such people demonstrate proven abilities that are highly valuable to the firm ... such individuals also have significant exposure to liabilities that non-owners don't face, such as personal loan-guarantees, personal lease guarantees, personal exposure to E&O claims, etc.
in some very large firms, non-owners who run departements or large studios, or even very large projects, also may earn base compensation in excess of $100k ... also, it's not uncommon for the leader of a significant non-design function -- such as marketing or HR or accounting -- to earn at or above $100k
"I would assume principals make huge amounts of money' ... it is all relative I suppose ... sure, a six-figure income seems huge if you're entry level ... and, it does afford a fairly nice life ... but, given how hard we all work and the risks we face, I don't know a lot of principals who believe they're paid either fairly or well, especially compared to our counterparts in law and medicine.
(*) however, I know quite a few owners of mid to small firms who earn between $70-90k ... so, ownership per se is not necessarily the ticket to riches ... there's more to it than that.
I recently read a book that was very inspirational, and it encouraged me that even an architect has the potential to make over $100k per year.
Secrets of Six Figure Women
Yup, to get big bucks you gotta bring in big bucks. It's not talent, or architectural talent, when you get to that level, it's all business and schmoozing.
I am sure they are making a good living, but I remember when I was at Gensler right after grad school and saw what the partners were driving - a 10 year old Lexus SC300 and an old 530. Now, cars aren't everything, of course, but they are one of the easiest ways to judge a persons financial status.
I just couldn't get over that. I figured if you were a partner in such a large firm, you'd be making HUGE dollars. Guess not.
Everyone, in almost any profession, has the potential to make tons, it's just that the average in architecture is so low. It's like a small lottery as to whether you'll make past $100k.
I've always thought that when you're in a position to run your own practice, it is like any business. You can do poorly, and many people do, but if you're a good businessperson, you can do really well.
trace, i'd say business and schmoozing are a talent. a very important talent to running a successful business at that.
We have this impression that one cannot make good money in architecture ... or, that you have to do bad buildings in order to earn big ... or we need to be unpleasant and think only about business. I don't believe any of this needs to be the case.
I know a guy who brings home about $600k each year from a smallish practice (12-15 people) ... I have no reason to believe he takes advantage of his staff (he has no problem hiring good people and they tend to stay with him for a long time) ... he does good work, mostly renovating existing structures ... how does he do it ... he works very, very hard; he's really good working with his clients; he has established a good reputation that brings him a lot of repeat work (it's like he has a "brand" here in our community ...
and (now pay attention ... this is the key) he charges large fees and walks away from work that doesn't have good fees
oh ... and I've never seen him drive a brand new car and he never drives anything fancier than a Volvo
$600k?? I am curious how you know he makes $600k?
Not saying cars are what counts at all, just that when you don't know anything else, it's one way of guessing.
e - yes, it's a great talent, that's what I was trying to get at that people can make bank in any profession, given the right business savvy and the right conditions (ie luck).
But 99% don't.
Wait we get paid for what we do - damn, I was happy when they let me park my bmx in the office
ah, sorry for the confusion trace.
100k at a corporate firm is not out of reach by any means (partners/principals etc, of which there are many, in some cases)...
don't judge a person by the car they drive...read "The Wealthy Barber" or "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". what you see is not always what you get...and you may not make $100k a year, but there are ways to make your money work for you-if you want to be successful start learning how to take care of your financial portfolio and make that successful.
I honestly think that, as you've read before, this is an old person's practice. It takes time to get good, get the clients that come back and establish a reputation that speaks of credibility, skill and experience. I don't consider my self old but I must say even in the last two years the work comes to us more than I have to go find it, and its good work that pays well. I don't charge out rageous amounts, just scale as per the local association requests. But what changes over time is the quality of the client. They respect what you do and expect to be paid fairly for assisting them. Its tough to do when you are starting out, but you're only as good as your last project / client so pick good ones or be prepared to wait for the right one.
We do well for a small firm ( well into the 6-figure range ) and we are only 5 people. Its taken time but it isn't that difficult if you want to work hard to get it right. As for material things I have to say that I pouredmy initial financial gains back into the office, aside from buying my own house for my family, and didn't worry about me too much ( that's just a personal decision) and didn't own a new car til I turned 40. I don't take many holidays but don't consider that I live like a monk either. I can see that in a short time (5 yrs ) I can start to improve on the car and holidays but not before establishing a well tuned office with a strong client base. Its a short term sacrifice when you're young for a long term gain, every job, every work experience builds on the last and establishes your network .... look in the rear view mirror from the end of your career.... what does that look like, then make the choices that you would be proud of.
600K !!!???? get outta here !!
i like the advice from whistler that you should concentrate on picking the right clients or waiting for the right ones. Its really hard to learn how to say no to jobs and saying no is a really tough lesson to learn because who knows if more work will come or not. I work for a small firm and my boss hustles but he jumps on everything and alot of it turns out to be bs that doesnt get past schematic sketches.
you'd be surprised how many architects make six fig's and up. The ones making the insane money (like 600+) are a select few who have a "specialty". Some of the top renderers out there specially watercolor...are up there.
I work for a large corp. firm and the base salary for a VP is well above the 150 mark. Sure most of the earnings pottential depends on what kind of revenue you are bringing in, but there are some who are just designers...and don't do a whole lot of "shmoozing"
On another front...my dad is an architect who had his own firm for many years (small firm 6-10ppl). He was certainly making well into the mid-six figs. for a long time, but all at what price? he eventually gave it all up, and went back to school...teach...govmt' job with no liability/headaches. He now has time to build a house here another there (for creative outlet)...travel...paint...etc. Sometimes to make alot of $$ = selling your sould to the dev...il...I mean dev...elopers!
The most respectable route is to build a successful well respected practice...sacrifice certain things in your life to develop others. The kind of practice where you can refuse some clients...for the ones who will allow you to produce the best possible work.
I agree that in most larger firms anyone that has reached the level of partner/principal is probably in the 6 figure range. As the original poster questioned the salary poll, I do as well. The last time I went through there it seemed that there were plenty of people in that range at quite young ages. Granted, there isn't much control over that poll and it doesn't tell the whole story. From my experience, even in large offices, it's very rare for someone younger than their mid-40's to be in the $100k + salary range.
Still, $100k doesn't buy that nice of a life anymore. Most dual income couples earn in excess of $100k and are living paycheck to paycheck. That kind of wage won't exactly elevate you to the big leagues.
No, $100k certainly won't make you rich by any means. As my dad always says, 'the only way to make money is to work for yourself'.
Still, though, and please feel free to jump in here, this discussion sounds like it's easily in the grasp of the average architect to make well into the 6 digits. Can't say I agree with that, but others on here know a lot more about that than I ever will.
The large firms I've been at have a partner ratio of about 1/10-1/50, or somewhere like that, making it very hard and rare to get to that ponit. I know of a few firms that outsource things and are top heavy, but they have the connections and experience to make it work (ie worked at many large firms as top management before starting their own firm).
Point being, it's difficult and rare for to be a partner or even have a firm that can sustain itself. So many varialbes involved for business success, not to mention stress (I certainly couldn't be going that way if I had a family).
If you're living paycheck to paycheck off 100k it's because you're making poor spending decisions, not because you're not making enough money. People start off in the 30k range and really are living paycheck to paycheck but then as they start earning more they keep buying more...bigger houses, nicer cars, excessive amounts of clothing, furniture, housewares, and gadgets.
bryan4arch,
I'm not sure whether you can say it's poor spending decision. Sure, people buy bigger house and cars, but not all of them are doing that to show off; we all get married, need bigger house for kids (which leads to more property tx), paying off student loans, mortgages, kids' expense, car payments, etc. Plus, if you live in either NYC, SF, or Boston, cost of living is considerably higher than other places. Sure, I remember when I was paid $30k and lived paycheck to paycheck, but that was when I lived by myself in studio in some nasty neighborhood. You can't expect everyone to live at that condition of living forever.
But again, gee I wish I make $100k! :D
paycheck to paycheck is almost always ( i generally hate making generalizations <---like that one) a result of planning or spending decisions. I don't care how much you make, you must live within your means. I don't make much money at all, but I certainly don't live paycheck to paycheck, my neighborhood is great, and I'm not mal-nourished. Do you really need that big of a house? new car? to go to a super expensive grad school? Get a double wide, buy an old station wagon... (I didn't use the word "poor" in reference to planning or spending decisions, because some are quite deliberate in being in extreme debt and living paycheck to paycheck)... it can always be controlled. blah blah blah
Living on 100K is great if you are single or DINK (Dual Income-No Kids), but try living in a large city with children on that salary! Housing costs almost make that level of household salary a necessity these days. "Paycheck to paycheck" is a reality when you have grad school loans, a mortgage, and infant daycare to pay.
I would say the 600K figure is definitely possible, depending on the firm and the market you are in. The partners in my firm drive fancy cars, wear expensive suits, and live in multi-million dollar homes.
I live paycheck to paycheck in Boston. I spend almost nothing: no new clothes, no shoes, no books, nothing. I have a comfortable existence without material possessions and choose to deal with the cost of living here for the time being because I would rather be poor in an interesting city than rich back home in suburban orange county. I will not be able to keep this up forever, of course, but for the time being it's worth it. As my monthly expenditures are literally no more than food, rent split 4 ways with roommates, enormous student loans, utilities, and transportation, and I had a reasonably high salary for my age in architecture in this city, I think you are wrong, AP, that paycheck-to-paycheck is a result of spending decisions.
Most other people I know in their mid-20s operate the same way: thrifty and w/ no ability to save. It seems like for every one of us the reason is high student loans.
Actually I was just thumbing through a new book that focuses on this new phenomenon: Strapped: Why America's 20- and 30-somethings Can't Get Ahead
Also btw I can't afford health insurance in this state on my pay. So count that in.
I agree with myriam. (I live in Boston, too)
I don't have a car, live in tiny 1-bed, and didn't go to super expensive school, but still it's hard to make living here in Boston. I chose to live here in Boston, so I don't complain about that fact, but I have to say that paycheck to paycheck is not always a result of poor spending decision.
spending and planning decisions, myriam. and again, not poor spending and planning decisions, but choices, nevertheless, that were made along the way. As you described, you "choose to deal with the cost of living here for the time being because..." and you also chose to go to a grad school that would leave you in a certain degree of debt (I will likely make that same decision in the near future).
All I mean to say is that all of these things are matters of choice.
Yeah... I worked out a new budget the other day to allow for increased student loans monthly payments, and I figured on aiming for $100 of groceries and $100 of restaurants for a 15 day period (this is to see if I can have some money left over from the month for savings, for once). Then I went to the grocery store. I bought essentials, on sale, mostly store-brands: vegetables, meats, yogurt, things like that. The total was $134. I ran the receipt past my mom, back in California, to make sure I wasn't crazy. Sure enough, items tended to be 1.25 times what she just paid back in Orange County--the SAME brands, same items, etc. The grocery store here is literally the same or sometimes MORE expensive than the 4 convenience stores around my home and office. CONVENIENCE stores. This was the local chain, not, btw, Whole Foods.
Now you try saving money in that situation. I didn't even get enough food for 15 days, aggravatingly. I'll need more meat, dairy, and bread before then.
ya, my first post had tinges of sarcasm...but the principle is the same. We put ourselves in these situations, whatever they may be... I'm not calling anyone short-sighted etc.
I did not go to grad school. I have B.Arch undergrand and it is not ivy league, for the record. My parents are middle class (teacher and retired car mechanic) and the in-state school choice (CalPoly SLO) actually ended up being MORE expensive than the package I got from my private school. It's almost impossible to go to architecture school from a mid-middle class background and not end up with huge loans. I worked during school, too, btw.
I do not believe that given that type of background--the most common background in America--it is at all possible to get a professional architectural education without paying a LOT of money.
Yes, I could have "planned" not to become an architect. But that defeats your point, doesn't it?
I did choose to live in Boston, but once you start saying, ok well having a decent living is only possibly in certain places, or in certain fields, in America... well you're kind of taking your "planning" argument to a ridiculous level. Not everyone can "plan" to be a doctor in an exurb.
Do you see what I'm saying?
AP, that's my point, though. I did not choose to be born to an immigrant mechanic with no high school education--but I was. We do not have control over everything in our lives. Personal decisions make a difference but the fact of the matter is that people's lives and situations are unequal in this country, their opportunities are as well, and that restricts the choices available to them in the first place.
Also, once again you have to recognize that there is some level of freedom of being given up in each choice: not all choices are an equal playing field, I'm saying. This is hard to explain because I am REALLY sick today. Urgh.
and in fact, I almost envy your situation, myriam. my initial post-school plan was to move to Boston and work...but I sacrificed that wish for a variety of reasons...
i agree with AP. it is mostly, but not always, about choices. we chose what to study and where to go to school. we chose were to live and where to work. we chose whether to have kids or not. i am not rich, but i do okay. i probably work harder than most [not including the fine folks at archinect], but i'm fine with that choice.
the younger we are, the less choice we have though. we can not chose our family. we can not chose the opportunities that our parents can afford/provide to us. things like this can affect the number of choices you have as you get older.
oh that's a shame, wish I'd read that back when. It's pretty easy to get a job up here--once you're already up here. Kind of ridiculously easy, actually. There're even two architectural temp agencies that are GREAT to get your foot in the door and experience a wide variety of firms while being paid like $18/hour for basic cadding. I mean if you're still interested let me know.
actually, aside from the immigrant part, our backgrounds share some similarity - Mom was a flight attendant for most of my childhood, Dad a self-employed auto mechanic (still is, gettin' kinda old for it, though). I benefitted from Florida's scholarship program, and therefore have a reasonable amount of debt to deal with from public school undergrad...I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree with any of it. I am putting off my potential paycheck to paycheck existance for after grad school. Like I said, i will make that choice in the near future. I wanted to set up a 401k first, and spend some quality time with siblings, young and old...before I took that trip...
I hope you get well soon.
(thanks...)
Right, e, I agree. The thing is, your choices only begin to be broadened post-school; until that point you are pretty much at the mercy of family/society. So the biggest problem with this schema, as the book I referenced above pointed out, is that this used to be fine back in the old days when your mostly pre-determined, very narrowly chosen college shunted you out into the real world fresh and ready to begin your lifetime of choosing/planning. Nowadays when we reach that beginning point of choice-making, we start right out with a huge negative hole to fill FROM the beginning, at the point at which we are supposed to be learning to make good choices. You never really get a chance to do it right.
A big problem in this country is the cost of education, which continues to vastly outstrip inflation and with no justifiable reasoning. I don't have a choice in the fact that all colleges are hugely expensive (except to not go to a college at all, which REALLY dooms one to a paycheck-to-paycheck lifetime existence). See what I mean?
The problem is exacerbated for architects because we have an extremely limited number of scholastic accessways to the profession in the first place. In fact, in almost every state you can't even become an architect anymore without going to school, so there goes that choice right there. So, given that you have to go to school, the fastest and therefore cheapest way is to do a B.Arch. You're lucky if any school in your state even offers that. For example, in my state it was SLO only (Pomona too but the cost is the same). As I noted above this ended up being more expensive than my cheapest private school alternative, thus the decision was made for me based on economy.
I just don't think you can do it any differently nowadays. And yet I still come out with so much debt and so little comparitive pay that life is very expensive.
I disagree that being broke on 100k is bad decisions. Think of an average family with two kids, two cars and a decent suburban home of approx 2500sq ft. Dual income at somewhere around $120k. That puts you into a pretty high tax bracket and with health insurance and all the other income deducations they'll have around $60k net. Then factor in around $2500/month for the house - $2k mortgage and $500 utilities. That's being conservative, but it eats up $30k. Then the cars at $1000/month. Again very conservative but poof goes $12k. We are already down to a disposable $1500/month and I don't think those expenses are anywhere out of line for the average American family, nor the worst decisions. Gotta have a decent house for the family and cars to get to work.
Additionally, $100k is extrememly rare for an architect. The AIA salary figures show it. In your average firm those making 6 figures is under 10%. Yes, it's obtainable, but I wouldn't promise it to anyone...even the hard worker.
Another thing to note, given the Boston discussion, is that in architecture there isn't pay equity that equals cost of living. A recent grad in Boston or NYC isn't going to earn the equivalent in higher living costs vs. that recent grad in Omaha. Granted, the pay in Omaha is probably less, but not by the same factor the cost of living is less. Young architects have to really love the expensive cities because financially, they'd be ahead to be living in the smaller less expensive cities.
Thanks for the well wishes! I understand where you're coming from. But look at what you yourself note: You will have a paycheck-to-paycheck post-education life, n'est-ce pas? And you cannot become an architect without that grad school. Thus, ipso facto, you don't really have a choice in the fact that you are going to be stuck living at the bottom of the economy.
I don't mean to be argumentative, in fact I appreciate your thoughtful points. I find this interesting, I have thought about it a LOT. ("Did I really fuck up? Where did I go wrong? How come everyone else I know is screwed, too?" etc.etc.)
Depending on what part of the country you're in I think a lot of people making less than 40 or 50k don't have much choice about living paycheck to paycheck, no matter how well they plan. You get to a point where there are only so many expenses you can cut out or cut back without being pushed into unreasonable choices.
I'm more concerned about people making 100k and living paycheck to paycheck. People above mentioned kids as a reason, but there are a lot of people with virtually no income raising kids relatively successfully. Even with kids you have choices. Public vs. private schools; having one parent stay home vs. daycare; staying in a small house/apt. vs. upsizing. The fact that so many middle class kids are being raised thinking they're entitled to private education, exotic vacations, designer clothes, expensive toys, a brand new car upon reaching age 16, and their own private bedroom full of electronics is part of what got our country in this economic mess in the first place.
As for student loan debt (and I've said this a million times on this forum whenever anybody brings up the subject), you shouldn't be in a big rush to pay it back. I know it feels crushing, but the benefits from putting "extra" income toward paying off credit card debt or toward retirement savings will be much greater.
bryan, I agree with every single paragraph of your response.
Personally I pay minimums and keep myself credit-free with whatever is left over.
well, as I see it, I have the choice of attending UF for grad school (my undergrad). I know my in-state earning potential wouldn't be affected by that choice, nor my ability to get a job in state or otherwise. My debt would be significantly less though, by far (cheaper, significant tuition waivers/GTA position stipends/scholarships for many UF u-grads returning for grad...). Also, there are many other public and private schools, from what I've learned, that offer full tuition waivers etc. to qualified applicants . . . . . .
BUT...
at this point, it is likely (although not certain) that I will make a grad school choice that will leave me in more than the necessarry amount of debt. That will be a choice, perhaps a sacrifice.
So, that potential paycheck to paycheck life will be by choice, but not my only choice...I could still become a licensed architect and sacrifice big city life until thereafter, once my earning potential is greater and I've had the chance to save up etc.
but, like you and so many others, I wanna live in Urbania...
ya bryan, I don't mean to speak in absolutes. location can make it difficult, but location is part of the choice-package.
Good point AP. I went to state schools that offered cheaper options. So far it hasn't hurt my earning potential and helped ease the pain from costs of living. Simple fact is that living in America isn't as cheap as many like to believe it is. The $41k average salary in America isn't going to provide the life you see on television. Neither will $100k. You have to enter this profession because you love it, and not for what you can earn in it. That's what I tell high school career classes. I don't lie. They always ask what you can earn, and I always tell them if you are asking that you really aren't that serious.
i also went to state school. my parents did not have great means so i had to pay for most of it myself. it did not hurt my earning potential either.
on a side note, i actually made my last payment for my student loan at the end of last year. that should date me a bit.
congrats e. ya know, you're pretty with it for an old guy ;)
;+] thx.
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.