I would, because I know I'm getting paid pretty well now, and confident enough in my skills to think I'd have a good chance of convincing them I was worth more once they saw what a good worker I am.
You can't shine a turd though - be careful. There's plenty of threads around here about "kewl" architects that cannot (or worse, refuse to) run the business side of their office to save their life - and if that's why you're getting a pay cut, be careful because it will quickly piss you off working late into the evening with no compensation. I know from whence I speak.
yeah, I guess I should've qualified my answer- I'd take a slice off of my current payrate, I wouldn't let it get cut in half or 2/3rds or something really big. But I wouldn't quibble over a little to medium sized cut if it meant doing better work.
That would be really tough at this point in my career (family & house). I learned today that my family heath care (fully paid by the firm) costs $13,000 per year!
If it was a firm I REALLY wanted to work for and would *make me much happier* we would figure out how to make it happen (no vacations, more side work, reduced expenditures...). As to how much I would reduce by, we would have to really look hard at our budget and goals to determine a threshold we could get by at.
Grasshopper-ish...yeah, I guess I'm still one of those (dog-children don't count, right?)
The shine always seems to fade at a job / office after I've been there for a while (approx 3 weeks)...and you're left with the salary and benefits you negotiated back when you were bright eyed, bushy tailed and eager. We had a 401K presentation yesterday, which reminded me how generous my benefits package is... but for an ambitious young thing like me, I ask myself how much longer I can go on being bored in my job. Maybe I'm just asking for trouble...typical immediate gratification Gen-Xer traits!
I think I'd be ok with a smallish pay cut for the right starchitectural firm offer. If it gets me where I want to go beyond that job...(a transcontinental antipod practice?)
how long has it been since your last raise? I know a lot of people who move jobs for several reasons, including quality of work, atmosphere, ect., but often it comes down to not getting the raises you want at your firm because off poor organization, and often lack of the firm's acknoweldgement of thier assets. I always try to use a job switch as a bump in pay - but the type of work and the quality has increased incrementally from firm to firm, not a huge jump.
also, see what kind of additional responsibility and $ you will have in the long run.
Its been about 1.5 years since my last raise. I was proactive about asking for my last pay increase, but my conscience has kicked in and I'd feel bad about asking for more money, and then leave anyway. Overall, I'm satisfied with what I'm being paid right now.
i just figured that i've made 8 job switches in the past 8 years (since 1999) and i've taken a pay cut on 4 occasions, got raises 3 times and once the difference was negliable...i'm not sure that money is really all that important and i definitely don't switch jobs on account of pay. oh...and 2 of the 3 raises were in taking jobs outside of architecture firms. i should also note that geographic relocations have tended to impact my wages too.
keep in mind the common pattern that some firms HAVE to pay higher than "market" wages because they are horrible places to work or they provide limited growth opportunities or they undertake crappy projects.
if you're leaving one of those "bad" places and you're actually receiving "above market" wages at that bad place, then sure, taking a 10-15% pay cut would make sense.
however, if you're leaving a decent firm that offers decent working conditions and pays "market rate" wages for someone with your capabilities in your community, then it probably does not make much sense to take a severe paycut unless the new firm offers exceptional opportunity, of some sort
Puddles, sounds like alot of moving around! 2 years has been my average time limit in a job so far. Las Vegas is pretty hot right now, so jobs are plentiful and employers eager to hire. I get the feeling that if I step out of this market (because I want out of Nevada), then I'm going to have to be ok with a pay cut, no matter where I go.
I took a 10% cut between offers to take my current position, because it offered other things I was looking for at this point in my life, and also offered 100% health care which is a nice perk. Not sure if I would do it if I were older and wiser.
What you are getting paid currently also factors into the question, I think. If you are currently well paid, a pay cut may not be as drastic a factor as it is if you are just getting by. And family needs can also be a damper on this kind of move. If you have the sense that there are going to be other factors that make it worthwhile, money shouldn't be the only factor that decides it for you.
A year ago, I was looking at going to work for a firm that would have involved moving myself and my family across 3 time zones, selling our house in a down market, and moving to an area with even higher real estate costs than the already high local bubble we currently live in. But this was the key firm doing the kind of specialist work I studied for my thesis. So it was a position with a minor star, and theoretically it was an ideal position for me.
I'm underpaid now, and I was looking at this as an opportunity to get into a position where I would be doing work that really interested me and getting paid more reasonably.
I had already bought plane tickets (at my own expense, it turned out) to go out for a visit to the area/interview when they informed me that they were offering me little more than what I am currently making.
It was not just the money, but the way that things were handled on their end (I had given them a salary range I was expecting early in our discussions, but the salary issue didn't come up until shortly before we were supposed to go) that gave me a sense that this might not be the kind of place where I really wanted to work.
As things went along, little things just kept hinting that this might not be the right move to make. If you are lucky, I think you can get a sense of whether or not the pay differential is going to become a problem for you, or whether other things are going to make up for it.
I'm bumping this thread, because some things have happened recently...
1) No new projects of any significance coming into my office, and a few colleagues concerned about what we're all going to be doing in 6 months when the current jobs finish up.
2) I quit my job, got a pay rise offer, but my work is lacklustre and I'm not happy.
3) Talked to the firm I'd really like to work for in another city, and was told I wasn't going to be paid anywhere near what I get paid now. I'd consider them a small but supernova quality firm.
4) Now I'm concerned I'd be taking a massive pay cut moving to another city, while I have a very attractive salary sitting in front of me. But I know I'll be miserable if I take it.
What to do? I know I should take a break for a few weeks...
Before you totally reject the idea of accepting the offer in the other city, I would advise that you make a careful analysis of the differential in the cost-of-living between where you are now and where that other job is located.
Nobody likes the idea of bringing home a smaller paycheck, but the really important thing to know is what that paycheck actually will buy.
If, for example, you were contemplating a move from Manhattan to Dallas, you could take a 53% paycut and still maintain your standard of living (not that I'm suggesting living in Dallas is comparable to living in NYC). The purchasing power of a $ in Dallas is quite a lot higher than the purchasing power of that same dollar in NYC.
I used the calculator and compared the city I've moving from to the city I'd go to, quzzical. The cost of living is 6.75% higher in the city I want to move too. I'd consider that about even.
Does the AIA have salary surveys / averages for specific cities?
Yes they do ... the last AIA compensation survey was in 2005, but the data can be updated in a reasonable way, based on cost-of-living increase data published by the Department of Labor.
by the way, your description of the other firm as "small but supernova" doesn't exactly give me warm and fuzzies that they're going to be paying market rate.
This may well be the case, perhaps across the board, star firms just don't pay well. I can handle that to a certain extent, but...I also highly value my skills and what I do.
Is market rate too high an expectation from a stararchitect?
I just don't understand why firms that supposedly do above average work have to pay below average wages. Say two different firms are each doing the same building with the same program and budget. Why should it cost more for the "high design" firm to do the same amount of work? Yes, they could spend more hours working on the design...but if the wages are in-elastic (salary) that shouldn't matter. And don't give me that "spending on competition entries" crap.
From what I've seen, the firm principals/owners of the more design oriented firms tend to feather their own pockets slightly more. Possibly justified for their better design abilities, but not at the expense of their staff.
For same work/same hours I would never take a pay cut just because a different firm has a better design reputation. If one does very profitable corporate work and the other does public schools, ok, then I can see why wages are different. But largely I think big name firms pay crap wages because they know there's a ready supply of saps willing to fill the ranks.
aquapura, starchitects pay below market rates because there are many people willing to take a pay cut to work for them. so why should they pay more?
many starchitects team with "project architects" to do cd's and c.a., so they don't need to develop middle management (job captains and project managers) in-house.
jorge you proved my point....the lower pay isn't because they can't afford to pay higher...it's because people are willing to work for less. My dream is that architects collectively grow a spine and don't put up with that shit.
Yes, take a pay cut if you are working less hours, there's no work, recession, etc. But don't take a cut just to work for a name. That's just perpetuating the problem of pay in this field.
aquapura - without suggesting for even a moment that I condone the use of unpaid interns or abusive employment practices, I can't see how it is "wrong" for any firm to hire labor at the lowest rate practical.
did you pay more than you had to the last time you bought a car?
did you pay more than you had to for your last pair of shoes?
I didn't think so.
Some firms are in a position to offer "intangible value" in exchange for lower wages. If an individual is willing (and able) to work at below market rates -- and thinks it's a good bargain in exchange for the experience obtained -- then it's going to continue to happen.
Other firms do crappy work and have a terrible work environment -- those firms HAVE to pay high wages simply to have any employees at all.
MOST firms are in between -- offering reasonable wages for reasonable work experience and working conditions.
point taken, but I was trying to convey that the fault lies on the person that accepts the low pay, not the employer.
Of course nobody is going to pay more than they have to. Thus, if people refuse to work for low wages, said employer will have to pay a higher wage. Same function of the crappy firm having to pay higher to retain their employees.
Those that desire unions, collective bargaining, in the arch business want this but are afraid to do it on an individual basis. What I say is, yes, I agree with those crying for a union, but say put your money where your mouth is.
file, it is wrong for architects to hire labor at the lowest rate. it is wrong in the most simple way: it is against their own interest.
any architect, starchitects included, should keep a happy and stable team that develops over the years into experienced professionals.
the salary increase it takes to keep someone happy is worth it many times over in recruiting and training costs, in hiring temps, in hiring middle managers instead of developing them in-house, in the poor quality control that results from turnover during a project (leading to potential lawsuits). insurance also looks at staff stability when setting their rates, etc.
architects who capitalize on their fame to keep wages low (and they do) are short-sighted.
it is well known that many who enter this profession simply are not motivated as much by money as they are by the work they get to do. this is common among artistic personalities (actors, poets, dancers, painters, musicians, etc.) and it tends to create conditions where there are large numbers of very talented people competing for the best positions (check out the number of people who audition when a symphony orchestra needs to fill a vacant position) which tends to keep the wages low -- supply and demand, you know.
I run my firm in alignment with the concepts you espouse -- but, my firm is far from being cast in the "starchitect" mold -- we're a business oriented practice and we know that we have to take care of our people if we want them to stay -- it's also the moral thing to do.
however, I'm inclined to think starchitects really don't care whether their younger people stay or not (in fact, they may desire high turnover to keep the energy level and idea flow high) -- after all, there's always 15 other starving artists hovering around the stage door, wating for one of the other actors to break a leg.
I have read posts before about the different attitude in stararchitect firms towards interns versus senior staff. My impression is that senior staff can be treated / paid very well, because of their great value and knowledge. The far larger pool of intern potentials keep the wages for staff with little or no experience much lower.
The expectation would be that interns would come and go, whereas senior staff would hang around longer. I've been working in the profession for 8 years, and I'd hope my experience would count for something when it comes to negotiating a new position.
Pay cut
Would you take a cut in your salary to accept a job you really want in another office? If so, how much less would you accept?
When I was young and hungry, yes I would have.
Now that I have a kid and a mortgage, I can't afford to.
Do your experimental job-hopping NOW, young architects!
I would, because I know I'm getting paid pretty well now, and confident enough in my skills to think I'd have a good chance of convincing them I was worth more once they saw what a good worker I am.
Very much so....10-15%, and I completely agree with Rationalist. In fact...I'm kinda in that position right now
you have to weigh the pro's and con's, if you are going to take lower pay at a starchitects office, it will have a nice shine on your resume'.
You can't shine a turd though - be careful. There's plenty of threads around here about "kewl" architects that cannot (or worse, refuse to) run the business side of their office to save their life - and if that's why you're getting a pay cut, be careful because it will quickly piss you off working late into the evening with no compensation. I know from whence I speak.
yeah, I guess I should've qualified my answer- I'd take a slice off of my current payrate, I wouldn't let it get cut in half or 2/3rds or something really big. But I wouldn't quibble over a little to medium sized cut if it meant doing better work.
i've done it.
no, but i would take more money to do worse work.
i believe the expression is "you can't polish a turd." you can't deny it rolls off the tongue better.
That would be really tough at this point in my career (family & house). I learned today that my family heath care (fully paid by the firm) costs $13,000 per year!
If it was a firm I REALLY wanted to work for and would *make me much happier* we would figure out how to make it happen (no vacations, more side work, reduced expenditures...). As to how much I would reduce by, we would have to really look hard at our budget and goals to determine a threshold we could get by at.
Like LB said: jump now young grasshoppers!
i took a 70% pay cut when i left the financial sales industry to return to the architecture profession.
and i'll probably take another steep pay cut if i decide to return to architecture again.
not only does it roll off the tongue better - it's true. now i've shined a few turds in my day, but polish, no doing.
less money has never made me feel better.
pay shmay.
I don't think so, I would find something wrong with the firm and hate it eventually, like usual.
Grasshopper-ish...yeah, I guess I'm still one of those (dog-children don't count, right?)
The shine always seems to fade at a job / office after I've been there for a while (approx 3 weeks)...and you're left with the salary and benefits you negotiated back when you were bright eyed, bushy tailed and eager. We had a 401K presentation yesterday, which reminded me how generous my benefits package is... but for an ambitious young thing like me, I ask myself how much longer I can go on being bored in my job. Maybe I'm just asking for trouble...typical immediate gratification Gen-Xer traits!
I think I'd be ok with a smallish pay cut for the right starchitectural firm offer. If it gets me where I want to go beyond that job...(a transcontinental antipod practice?)
how long has it been since your last raise? I know a lot of people who move jobs for several reasons, including quality of work, atmosphere, ect., but often it comes down to not getting the raises you want at your firm because off poor organization, and often lack of the firm's acknoweldgement of thier assets. I always try to use a job switch as a bump in pay - but the type of work and the quality has increased incrementally from firm to firm, not a huge jump.
also, see what kind of additional responsibility and $ you will have in the long run.
Its been about 1.5 years since my last raise. I was proactive about asking for my last pay increase, but my conscience has kicked in and I'd feel bad about asking for more money, and then leave anyway. Overall, I'm satisfied with what I'm being paid right now.
i just figured that i've made 8 job switches in the past 8 years (since 1999) and i've taken a pay cut on 4 occasions, got raises 3 times and once the difference was negliable...i'm not sure that money is really all that important and i definitely don't switch jobs on account of pay. oh...and 2 of the 3 raises were in taking jobs outside of architecture firms. i should also note that geographic relocations have tended to impact my wages too.
keep in mind the common pattern that some firms HAVE to pay higher than "market" wages because they are horrible places to work or they provide limited growth opportunities or they undertake crappy projects.
if you're leaving one of those "bad" places and you're actually receiving "above market" wages at that bad place, then sure, taking a 10-15% pay cut would make sense.
however, if you're leaving a decent firm that offers decent working conditions and pays "market rate" wages for someone with your capabilities in your community, then it probably does not make much sense to take a severe paycut unless the new firm offers exceptional opportunity, of some sort
Puddles, sounds like alot of moving around! 2 years has been my average time limit in a job so far. Las Vegas is pretty hot right now, so jobs are plentiful and employers eager to hire. I get the feeling that if I step out of this market (because I want out of Nevada), then I'm going to have to be ok with a pay cut, no matter where I go.
I've just taken a cut to change positions.
(Though I just got a major raise and the cut is more that the pre-raise salary.)
i'll see your pay cut, and raise you one free lunch.
I took a 10% cut between offers to take my current position, because it offered other things I was looking for at this point in my life, and also offered 100% health care which is a nice perk. Not sure if I would do it if I were older and wiser.
myriam i am giving you a giant imaginary raise! cuz you are awesome!
Ha ha! vr I have been designing you a small surprise lately. It's taking me awhile though.
i luvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv surprises!
What you are getting paid currently also factors into the question, I think. If you are currently well paid, a pay cut may not be as drastic a factor as it is if you are just getting by. And family needs can also be a damper on this kind of move. If you have the sense that there are going to be other factors that make it worthwhile, money shouldn't be the only factor that decides it for you.
A year ago, I was looking at going to work for a firm that would have involved moving myself and my family across 3 time zones, selling our house in a down market, and moving to an area with even higher real estate costs than the already high local bubble we currently live in. But this was the key firm doing the kind of specialist work I studied for my thesis. So it was a position with a minor star, and theoretically it was an ideal position for me.
I'm underpaid now, and I was looking at this as an opportunity to get into a position where I would be doing work that really interested me and getting paid more reasonably.
I had already bought plane tickets (at my own expense, it turned out) to go out for a visit to the area/interview when they informed me that they were offering me little more than what I am currently making.
It was not just the money, but the way that things were handled on their end (I had given them a salary range I was expecting early in our discussions, but the salary issue didn't come up until shortly before we were supposed to go) that gave me a sense that this might not be the kind of place where I really wanted to work.
As things went along, little things just kept hinting that this might not be the right move to make. If you are lucky, I think you can get a sense of whether or not the pay differential is going to become a problem for you, or whether other things are going to make up for it.
I would only take a paycut if I completely hated my current job and the prospects looked better elsewhere.
I'm bumping this thread, because some things have happened recently...
1) No new projects of any significance coming into my office, and a few colleagues concerned about what we're all going to be doing in 6 months when the current jobs finish up.
2) I quit my job, got a pay rise offer, but my work is lacklustre and I'm not happy.
3) Talked to the firm I'd really like to work for in another city, and was told I wasn't going to be paid anywhere near what I get paid now. I'd consider them a small but supernova quality firm.
4) Now I'm concerned I'd be taking a massive pay cut moving to another city, while I have a very attractive salary sitting in front of me. But I know I'll be miserable if I take it.
What to do? I know I should take a break for a few weeks...
Before you totally reject the idea of accepting the offer in the other city, I would advise that you make a careful analysis of the differential in the cost-of-living between where you are now and where that other job is located.
Nobody likes the idea of bringing home a smaller paycheck, but the really important thing to know is what that paycheck actually will buy.
If, for example, you were contemplating a move from Manhattan to Dallas, you could take a 53% paycut and still maintain your standard of living (not that I'm suggesting living in Dallas is comparable to living in NYC). The purchasing power of a $ in Dallas is quite a lot higher than the purchasing power of that same dollar in NYC.
Check out this website for some help: Cost of living comparison calculator
I used the calculator and compared the city I've moving from to the city I'd go to, quzzical. The cost of living is 6.75% higher in the city I want to move too. I'd consider that about even.
Does the AIA have salary surveys / averages for specific cities?
Yes they do ... the last AIA compensation survey was in 2005, but the data can be updated in a reasonable way, based on cost-of-living increase data published by the Department of Labor.
by the way, your description of the other firm as "small but supernova" doesn't exactly give me warm and fuzzies that they're going to be paying market rate.
This may well be the case, perhaps across the board, star firms just don't pay well. I can handle that to a certain extent, but...I also highly value my skills and what I do.
Is market rate too high an expectation from a stararchitect?
I just don't understand why firms that supposedly do above average work have to pay below average wages. Say two different firms are each doing the same building with the same program and budget. Why should it cost more for the "high design" firm to do the same amount of work? Yes, they could spend more hours working on the design...but if the wages are in-elastic (salary) that shouldn't matter. And don't give me that "spending on competition entries" crap.
From what I've seen, the firm principals/owners of the more design oriented firms tend to feather their own pockets slightly more. Possibly justified for their better design abilities, but not at the expense of their staff.
For same work/same hours I would never take a pay cut just because a different firm has a better design reputation. If one does very profitable corporate work and the other does public schools, ok, then I can see why wages are different. But largely I think big name firms pay crap wages because they know there's a ready supply of saps willing to fill the ranks.
aquapura, starchitects pay below market rates because there are many people willing to take a pay cut to work for them. so why should they pay more?
many starchitects team with "project architects" to do cd's and c.a., so they don't need to develop middle management (job captains and project managers) in-house.
jorge you proved my point....the lower pay isn't because they can't afford to pay higher...it's because people are willing to work for less. My dream is that architects collectively grow a spine and don't put up with that shit.
Yes, take a pay cut if you are working less hours, there's no work, recession, etc. But don't take a cut just to work for a name. That's just perpetuating the problem of pay in this field.
aquapura - without suggesting for even a moment that I condone the use of unpaid interns or abusive employment practices, I can't see how it is "wrong" for any firm to hire labor at the lowest rate practical.
did you pay more than you had to the last time you bought a car?
did you pay more than you had to for your last pair of shoes?
I didn't think so.
Some firms are in a position to offer "intangible value" in exchange for lower wages. If an individual is willing (and able) to work at below market rates -- and thinks it's a good bargain in exchange for the experience obtained -- then it's going to continue to happen.
Other firms do crappy work and have a terrible work environment -- those firms HAVE to pay high wages simply to have any employees at all.
MOST firms are in between -- offering reasonable wages for reasonable work experience and working conditions.
point taken, but I was trying to convey that the fault lies on the person that accepts the low pay, not the employer.
Of course nobody is going to pay more than they have to. Thus, if people refuse to work for low wages, said employer will have to pay a higher wage. Same function of the crappy firm having to pay higher to retain their employees.
Those that desire unions, collective bargaining, in the arch business want this but are afraid to do it on an individual basis. What I say is, yes, I agree with those crying for a union, but say put your money where your mouth is.
file, it is wrong for architects to hire labor at the lowest rate. it is wrong in the most simple way: it is against their own interest.
any architect, starchitects included, should keep a happy and stable team that develops over the years into experienced professionals.
the salary increase it takes to keep someone happy is worth it many times over in recruiting and training costs, in hiring temps, in hiring middle managers instead of developing them in-house, in the poor quality control that results from turnover during a project (leading to potential lawsuits). insurance also looks at staff stability when setting their rates, etc.
architects who capitalize on their fame to keep wages low (and they do) are short-sighted.
i guess this answers my own previous question, why should starchitects pay more.
Joe quit the Yankees....cause he would not take a pay cut!
GO JOE!
jorge_c - I take your point, up to a point.
it is well known that many who enter this profession simply are not motivated as much by money as they are by the work they get to do. this is common among artistic personalities (actors, poets, dancers, painters, musicians, etc.) and it tends to create conditions where there are large numbers of very talented people competing for the best positions (check out the number of people who audition when a symphony orchestra needs to fill a vacant position) which tends to keep the wages low -- supply and demand, you know.
I run my firm in alignment with the concepts you espouse -- but, my firm is far from being cast in the "starchitect" mold -- we're a business oriented practice and we know that we have to take care of our people if we want them to stay -- it's also the moral thing to do.
however, I'm inclined to think starchitects really don't care whether their younger people stay or not (in fact, they may desire high turnover to keep the energy level and idea flow high) -- after all, there's always 15 other starving artists hovering around the stage door, wating for one of the other actors to break a leg.
I have read posts before about the different attitude in stararchitect firms towards interns versus senior staff. My impression is that senior staff can be treated / paid very well, because of their great value and knowledge. The far larger pool of intern potentials keep the wages for staff with little or no experience much lower.
The expectation would be that interns would come and go, whereas senior staff would hang around longer. I've been working in the profession for 8 years, and I'd hope my experience would count for something when it comes to negotiating a new position.
pay cut,...fuck paycut
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.