In my experience it would be difficult for an architect to afford your list. Not even my partly-independently-wealthy boss can afford that list. And he owns a successful firm.
New 1000+ sf condo in Manhattan = ~$700,000 or so
nice vacation 2x a year= ~$10,000
eat at nice restaurants 3x a week = ~$225/wk = $11,700
...yes, I think that is unreasonable. Your restaurant budget alone would be almost 20% of a reasonable yearly gross income (~$60,000).
That may be a "small" list of desires, but it is an extremely expensive one. Perhaps you should look into the developer side of things after all--they do make this kind of money.
shoot. i thought 1000sf was pretty small. i guess i grew up in the suburbs so i'm used to 5000sf houses costing $500k. oh and i'll change it to nice restaurant once a week and not so nice restaurant twice a week. hmm.... that's still hard to afford on 60k. what do all the architects in new york do???
1000sf is bigger than my one-bed apartment. In Chicago, in the outer limits of Chicago, this quite old, shabby and run-down apartment would cost me about $200,000 to buy. In the heart of the city, and new, it would be about $500,000 - 600,000 if it's not that nice / not in a skyscraper with lake views (in which case it could be around a million). So I estimated on the Manhatten transfer.
I based your vacation and restaurant costs on 2 ppl, approximately.
All the architects in NY a) buy fixer-uppers in Brooklyn b) never take vacations and c) cook elaborate meals at home inspired by their study-abroad days in Florence.
...oversimplification, but, not far off, I'm willing to bet...
No, really--it's a great life, don't get me wrong--but it ain't a wealthy, rock-star life. You aren't going to be vacationing twice a year. First of all you won't even get the time off. Or if you even have the vacation days, your projects will keep you so swamped with work that you can't really take a full vacation. Eating out is REALLY expensive, and after awhile you start to realize it isn't really worth the money... you start thinking of all the other things you could buy with all that cash you're dropping on something your body forgets in 2 hours and you learn how to cook instead.
I dunno, I guess I'm a realist. But then again, as I said above, I love my life and this profession and enjoy what I do almost every day. So it's not so bad. :)
Chase ... with respect, you may want to start thinking a bit more about what you can do for a firm, and a bit less about how cushy that firm can make your life.
i think about what i can do for the architecture world every day in school. but i gotta think about me a lot too. i'm not just a workhorse for the industry, i also want to have a life and be happy beyond merely my contributions to the field / to the world (depending on how successful i end up being)
Are those of you who are happy with your profession below the age of 40? The question is, how long do you have to slog it out before it becomes something you love?
I'm 40. I have yet in my career to feel comfortable eating out even once a week. Hell, I have yet to feel comfortable spending $3.50 on a fancy coffee more than once a week!
But I've loved architecture since day one.
Chase, honey, I fear for your expectations. No one is saying you can't eventually have those things, but like jpriii intuited, you will most likely have quite a few long years of slogging through ramen noodles and scuzzy apartments before you get there.
Well you can't expect to make a bundle right out of school. Doctors have the same thing- they are residents for years at a low wage, long hours, and they have tons of debt, more than architects.
Chase just seems to be totally off base when it comes to expectations. Does he think people will pay him to sit around and tell him where to put buildings in the city, decide the program, and then he can just dream up architecture without worrying about budgets or if they make economic sense? Thats kind of like saying you want to be a lawyer who makes tons of money, but you want to only take cases that really matter to you, on your own schedule, that have next to no likelyhood of being won and you want to still make tons of money.
The people who are happiest in this profession deal in a balanced life. Yes, you get to design and create and make wonderful details, but you have to respect the clients wishes and budget. You can be compensated really well, but you have to make the client really value what you do by providing real value!
I get to do all kinds of stuff- medical offices, private homes, restaurants, community buildings, libraries, coffee shops, and oh, some industrial buildings too. They are all fun, interesting, challenging, and all of them have been better with an architects influence than they would have been without.
"how long do you have to slog it out before it becomes something you love
-- you either love it from the start or you don't.
I think you need to separate the idea of "loving being an architect" from "loving your economic circumstances" -- hell, the world is filled with starving artists who love the life they've chosen, but have difficulty making ends meet.
among the artistic endeavors, most architects earn decent livings -- especially when you compare our earnings potential to that of most poets, painters, sculptors, actors, classical musicians, etc. at least we usually get a steady paycheck, usually have benefits provided and rarely, if ever, have to answer a cattle call.
if you're in this for the money, then you probably ought to consider working at a hedge fund instead because (IMHO) few architects ever make the really big bucks (just like all those other artistics endeavors I listed above.) However, if you're in it because you can't see yourself ever doing anything else, then hardworking, intelligent members of this profession can make a decent living at every stage of their career -- with incremental improvement as we mature.
I think happiness* in architecture is proportional to the amount of power# you can relinquish in favour of service^.
In other words, you can achieve happiness in the profession if you lay down the need for power and control by focusing on your client, doing a good job, and focusing on the profession as a profession - not just a fashionable thing to do. You can then derive happiness from this mode of operation.
But, if you are a person who wants to be in a position of power, who seeks success instead of happiness, and sees the client as an impediment to the vision, you will suffer frustration and peril. Similarly if you have the perception that lots of money is completely mandatory, you will also be frustrated.
However, the 95/5 rule also applies here. You would've been given the 'talk' about how only 5% of those in the profession will be Rem's - the rest will find their niche somewhere in the process. The choice still remains that you can be part of the 5%.
For some, the relinquishng if power is easy and often it is not even a conscious decision. For others it is not easy, and a range of personal questions about how one operates comes into question. It might be that this kind of person sees development as a 'way out', or there might be a way to craft more adventurous goals and aspirations.
I know which camp I belong in.
*happiness as differentiated to success, ie, contentedness
#power as differentiated to control
^as in the concept of service as a noble calling
I spend alot of time counseling young students thinking about going into architecture. In a nutshell, here is what I advise.
95% of all architects work for 5% of all architects (and trust me, I am being conservative here). The 95% will struggle, be poorly paid, periodically laid off and generally treated like they are interchangable and expendible. The 5% who succeed generally do very well and can look forward to a lucrative, fulfilling life. The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling masses just do not have the total package of skills necessary to be successful in this business. The range of skills necessary to be a successful architect is staggering. It goes far beyond mere talent and technical training. It includes psychology, sociology, salesmanship, business skills, management skills and most importantly the ability to convince someone with money to use you to help them spend it.
I advise students that if they really believe that they have what it takes to be in the top 5%, then by all means go for it. However, you must be truly honest with youself when evaluating your skill set.
I remember, back in 2nd year of undergraduate school, our professors would gather entire class and berate us about any lingering expectations we had regarding career ambitions. They would chortle: "you think you'll make money? you think you'll be a big success? if you're a big success, maybe you'll be a techinical coordinator at SOM like Professor Soandso!!" This occurred regularly. We naively chuckled in response.
I also remember later thinking: "all architects die with their boots on", that architects rarely "retired" because they couldn't afford it. In those days I saw architects who had alcohol problems, marital problems, and/or money problems. Seems pay-levels have since increased faster than inflation rate. My first full-time job paid $14,150/year, many of my graduating classmates saw minimum-wage offers (if any) that recession year.
Chicagowoman, we got the same little chat [at my school in NZ] - I think it is mandatory. They tell you that just after you get hooked on architecture...
i would agree with your assessment on the split of 95% to 5% or more likely 97% to 3% in terms of who works for whom.
but my experience is not the same in terms of the 95% being poorly paid, struggling and often out of work, versus the 5% being well paid and in control.
in my offices, we have about 45 to 50 people. as one of two directors, i receive less pay than more than 12 of those people. that is to say, i pay 12 of my staff, more than i pay myself. and not because i am also getting profit-shares or other payments. this is a straight pay differential.
the staff get 4 weeks vacation, are paid rates at or above the norm for their locations. the reason the other director and i get paid so little, is that we put as much money as we can back into the office. we are un-economical in our operations because we do lots of competitions. but these also give us the chance to do something different, to experiment and explore and to go up against some well-known offices. they are hell to do, but they also allow the office to remain exhausted but fresh.
the majority of staff work 9-5, except during crunch time for competitions. in the last 10 years, if people in our offices have struggled financially, it is generally because they have large consumerist appetites, wanting larger houses, bigger cars, more TVs, etc. not much we as an office can do about.
the point i am trying to make is that the 5% or 3% who might go on to lead an office into doing some significant architecture, architecture that might have a lasting effect on the directions of architecture, are doing it as a risk - the risk of success, the risk of trying to keep 10 to 20 to 30 or more other people happy and well-paid, so that they don't have to worry about why the clients haven't paid the invoices, or the taxes, staffing, equipment, software, etc.
for me the bigger question is "How do schools of architecture prepare students for a life of not being the director? of not being the head designer? of being more than competent, but not being in charge?" because every office needs to have about 95% of the people doing the day-to-day work, but it also needs that 5% who lead, direct, manage, design and control the work. but do you teach everyone the same and foster the idealized goal of the hero architect for all students?
i can't imagine doing anything other than architecture. it is exceedingly frustrating - as it is so dependent on others and other external conditions - but it is a profession that creates effects that change the experience of the world. i think that is worth the effort.
I'm not sure the data supports these comments about 95/5 or 97/3.
The latest AIA Firm Survey includes the following quote: "Architecture firms with 50 or more employees accounted for ... 42 percent of all staff at architecture firms ...'
61% of architecture firms employ fewer that 5 people.
80% of architecture firms employ fewer than 10 people.
91% of architecture firms employ fewer than 20 people.
Despite the ongoing trend toward concentration, we're still a very fragmented industry, where small firms carry a lot of weight, provide a lot of employment, and offer entrepreneurial opportunity for anybody so inclined.
Also ... if you look at PSMJ's periodic Financial Peformance Surveys, the ratio of Total Staff to Partner/Principal typically runs about 10:1 to 12:1 industrywide.
Smallish firms will have a ratio of about 4:1 and largish firms may go as high as 18:1. But, as firms grow, so does the number of principals in those firms -- that just makes sense. It becomes a "span of control" mechanism, necessary to manage the firm and the firm's work.
However, it makes no sense to suggest that 95% of architects work for the remaining 5% -- the data just doesn't support a conclusion anywhere close to that ratio.
I agree quizz. The 19:1 ratio that olderthandirt is suggesting (conservative even) can not be correct. The Government even says 1 in 4 were self employed (based on somwhat outdated data).
Hi John who emailed me;
I am assuming you have been in the field for a few years, so you are probably experiencing the worst of the profession from a money point of view: low salary, and big college debt. This is not a profesion where you are guaranteed huge salaries, but you do not have to be destitute. I was talking today to a contractor who was giving me the sad story about an architect I went to school with who is struggling financially. He works by himself mostly on residential jobs, but that is not why he is making no money- it is because he just takes too long to do the designs, the drawings, designs stuff the owners don't want then won't pay for, insists on micromanaging every detail even though the client can't afford to pay him for it, etc. So there are a LOT Of architects out there who are not good at the business end, and basically don't make much money.
Sometimes we are our own worst enemies- I know many architects who seem to think if you are not suffering then you are not doing good architecture, and doing anything 'mundane' is a sell out. They are not necessarily related. Some architects doing mundane stuff are still broke, and some archtitects doing innovative creative work are wealthy.
However, with very minimal business skills, you can make a decent wage, even if you choose to work by yourself. Even if you work for someone, you can still make good money, but you have to be at the top of the professional heap, but I think that is like every profession. Those who show their worth every day get paid more than those who are mediocre. Both my husband and I are architects. We don't have that condo in manhattan and go out to dinner three nights week, but more because we don't want to than we can't afford it. I have lots of friends my age (51) who are arhitects, and we all have nice homes, sent our kids to college, are saving money for retirement, take vacations, etc. It's not the hedge fund lifestyle, but you certainly can support a family. I have always worked, so we always had two incomes, but lots of my employees support families with wives who work part time or not at all. (not as easily as on two incomes of course!)
We've also got some architects in town who own their own large firms and are multi-millionaires, making huge donations to hospitals and their colleges. That is of course the top of the heap, just like in most other professsions- not all actors make $2 million for a couple of weeks work on a movie. I have an architect friend who at 40 built a new million dollar home for cash. He owns a very succesful firm.
If you love the profession, then the money will be less important than what you are doing. My brother retired at 52. He was in sales, and was great at it, but he hated every day. For the last 6 years before he retired, he literally counted down every day. Now he is happy being retired, and he has lots of money, but he spent 30 years of his life being unhappy every single day.
So my advice to you: if you like the profession, stick with it. Don't blame others if you don't make the money you want to make, blame yourself and then set about making the money you want. It is possible to be at the top 10% of wage earners or whatever. I feel extremely well compensated for my work, and honestly don't feel like there is anything I want or need that I could not buy. (OK, I am pretty down to earth- I don't want a giant boat or a jet or a bunch of stuff others covet. ) The ones who are happy with what they are making are quiet. It is all of the people who (sometimes due to their own shortcomings) are not making money who are noisy and complaining.
Does this describe the architecture profession for you?
In my experience it would be difficult for an architect to afford your list. Not even my partly-independently-wealthy boss can afford that list. And he owns a successful firm.
New 1000+ sf condo in Manhattan = ~$700,000 or so
nice vacation 2x a year= ~$10,000
eat at nice restaurants 3x a week = ~$225/wk = $11,700
...yes, I think that is unreasonable. Your restaurant budget alone would be almost 20% of a reasonable yearly gross income (~$60,000).
That may be a "small" list of desires, but it is an extremely expensive one. Perhaps you should look into the developer side of things after all--they do make this kind of money.
shoot. i thought 1000sf was pretty small. i guess i grew up in the suburbs so i'm used to 5000sf houses costing $500k. oh and i'll change it to nice restaurant once a week and not so nice restaurant twice a week. hmm.... that's still hard to afford on 60k. what do all the architects in new york do???
chase... just get a funny mortgage and a couple a credit cards. this IS america.
1000sf is bigger than my one-bed apartment. In Chicago, in the outer limits of Chicago, this quite old, shabby and run-down apartment would cost me about $200,000 to buy. In the heart of the city, and new, it would be about $500,000 - 600,000 if it's not that nice / not in a skyscraper with lake views (in which case it could be around a million). So I estimated on the Manhatten transfer.
I based your vacation and restaurant costs on 2 ppl, approximately.
with any luck i'll have double income and no kids for a while... that might help!!
All the architects in NY a) buy fixer-uppers in Brooklyn b) never take vacations and c) cook elaborate meals at home inspired by their study-abroad days in Florence.
...oversimplification, but, not far off, I'm willing to bet...
No, really--it's a great life, don't get me wrong--but it ain't a wealthy, rock-star life. You aren't going to be vacationing twice a year. First of all you won't even get the time off. Or if you even have the vacation days, your projects will keep you so swamped with work that you can't really take a full vacation. Eating out is REALLY expensive, and after awhile you start to realize it isn't really worth the money... you start thinking of all the other things you could buy with all that cash you're dropping on something your body forgets in 2 hours and you learn how to cook instead.
I dunno, I guess I'm a realist. But then again, as I said above, I love my life and this profession and enjoy what I do almost every day. So it's not so bad. :)
i always take all my vacation days
and they dislike me for it
or maybe they dislike me because i preach that we should get six weeks vacation instead of two.
be sure to date a designer
Chase ... with respect, you may want to start thinking a bit more about what you can do for a firm, and a bit less about how cushy that firm can make your life.
i think about what i can do for the architecture world every day in school. but i gotta think about me a lot too. i'm not just a workhorse for the industry, i also want to have a life and be happy beyond merely my contributions to the field / to the world (depending on how successful i end up being)
Are those of you who are happy with your profession below the age of 40? The question is, how long do you have to slog it out before it becomes something you love?
I'm 40. I have yet in my career to feel comfortable eating out even once a week. Hell, I have yet to feel comfortable spending $3.50 on a fancy coffee more than once a week!
But I've loved architecture since day one.
Chase, honey, I fear for your expectations. No one is saying you can't eventually have those things, but like jpriii intuited, you will most likely have quite a few long years of slogging through ramen noodles and scuzzy apartments before you get there.
aww thanks for the commentary / the wake-up call. now i think i'm gonna go work for a hedge fund and have architecture as a hobby.
but what about those people on this thread who said they are happy and well-compensated? where are they located? what kind of work are they doing?
Well you can't expect to make a bundle right out of school. Doctors have the same thing- they are residents for years at a low wage, long hours, and they have tons of debt, more than architects.
Chase just seems to be totally off base when it comes to expectations. Does he think people will pay him to sit around and tell him where to put buildings in the city, decide the program, and then he can just dream up architecture without worrying about budgets or if they make economic sense? Thats kind of like saying you want to be a lawyer who makes tons of money, but you want to only take cases that really matter to you, on your own schedule, that have next to no likelyhood of being won and you want to still make tons of money.
The people who are happiest in this profession deal in a balanced life. Yes, you get to design and create and make wonderful details, but you have to respect the clients wishes and budget. You can be compensated really well, but you have to make the client really value what you do by providing real value!
I get to do all kinds of stuff- medical offices, private homes, restaurants, community buildings, libraries, coffee shops, and oh, some industrial buildings too. They are all fun, interesting, challenging, and all of them have been better with an architects influence than they would have been without.
-- you either love it from the start or you don't.
I think you need to separate the idea of "loving being an architect" from "loving your economic circumstances" -- hell, the world is filled with starving artists who love the life they've chosen, but have difficulty making ends meet.
among the artistic endeavors, most architects earn decent livings -- especially when you compare our earnings potential to that of most poets, painters, sculptors, actors, classical musicians, etc. at least we usually get a steady paycheck, usually have benefits provided and rarely, if ever, have to answer a cattle call.
if you're in this for the money, then you probably ought to consider working at a hedge fund instead because (IMHO) few architects ever make the really big bucks (just like all those other artistics endeavors I listed above.) However, if you're in it because you can't see yourself ever doing anything else, then hardworking, intelligent members of this profession can make a decent living at every stage of their career -- with incremental improvement as we mature.
I think happiness* in architecture is proportional to the amount of power# you can relinquish in favour of service^.
In other words, you can achieve happiness in the profession if you lay down the need for power and control by focusing on your client, doing a good job, and focusing on the profession as a profession - not just a fashionable thing to do. You can then derive happiness from this mode of operation.
But, if you are a person who wants to be in a position of power, who seeks success instead of happiness, and sees the client as an impediment to the vision, you will suffer frustration and peril. Similarly if you have the perception that lots of money is completely mandatory, you will also be frustrated.
However, the 95/5 rule also applies here. You would've been given the 'talk' about how only 5% of those in the profession will be Rem's - the rest will find their niche somewhere in the process. The choice still remains that you can be part of the 5%.
For some, the relinquishng if power is easy and often it is not even a conscious decision. For others it is not easy, and a range of personal questions about how one operates comes into question. It might be that this kind of person sees development as a 'way out', or there might be a way to craft more adventurous goals and aspirations.
I know which camp I belong in.
*happiness as differentiated to success, ie, contentedness
#power as differentiated to control
^as in the concept of service as a noble calling
Chase,
I spend alot of time counseling young students thinking about going into architecture. In a nutshell, here is what I advise.
95% of all architects work for 5% of all architects (and trust me, I am being conservative here). The 95% will struggle, be poorly paid, periodically laid off and generally treated like they are interchangable and expendible. The 5% who succeed generally do very well and can look forward to a lucrative, fulfilling life. The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling masses just do not have the total package of skills necessary to be successful in this business. The range of skills necessary to be a successful architect is staggering. It goes far beyond mere talent and technical training. It includes psychology, sociology, salesmanship, business skills, management skills and most importantly the ability to convince someone with money to use you to help them spend it.
I advise students that if they really believe that they have what it takes to be in the top 5%, then by all means go for it. However, you must be truly honest with youself when evaluating your skill set.
- yeah, that's gonna happen!
ego and objectivity generally don't show up in the same person.
I remember, back in 2nd year of undergraduate school, our professors would gather entire class and berate us about any lingering expectations we had regarding career ambitions. They would chortle: "you think you'll make money? you think you'll be a big success? if you're a big success, maybe you'll be a techinical coordinator at SOM like Professor Soandso!!" This occurred regularly. We naively chuckled in response.
I also remember later thinking: "all architects die with their boots on", that architects rarely "retired" because they couldn't afford it. In those days I saw architects who had alcohol problems, marital problems, and/or money problems. Seems pay-levels have since increased faster than inflation rate. My first full-time job paid $14,150/year, many of my graduating classmates saw minimum-wage offers (if any) that recession year.
Chicagowoman, we got the same little chat [at my school in NZ] - I think it is mandatory. They tell you that just after you get hooked on architecture...
re: oldethandirt
i would agree with your assessment on the split of 95% to 5% or more likely 97% to 3% in terms of who works for whom.
but my experience is not the same in terms of the 95% being poorly paid, struggling and often out of work, versus the 5% being well paid and in control.
in my offices, we have about 45 to 50 people. as one of two directors, i receive less pay than more than 12 of those people. that is to say, i pay 12 of my staff, more than i pay myself. and not because i am also getting profit-shares or other payments. this is a straight pay differential.
the staff get 4 weeks vacation, are paid rates at or above the norm for their locations. the reason the other director and i get paid so little, is that we put as much money as we can back into the office. we are un-economical in our operations because we do lots of competitions. but these also give us the chance to do something different, to experiment and explore and to go up against some well-known offices. they are hell to do, but they also allow the office to remain exhausted but fresh.
the majority of staff work 9-5, except during crunch time for competitions. in the last 10 years, if people in our offices have struggled financially, it is generally because they have large consumerist appetites, wanting larger houses, bigger cars, more TVs, etc. not much we as an office can do about.
the point i am trying to make is that the 5% or 3% who might go on to lead an office into doing some significant architecture, architecture that might have a lasting effect on the directions of architecture, are doing it as a risk - the risk of success, the risk of trying to keep 10 to 20 to 30 or more other people happy and well-paid, so that they don't have to worry about why the clients haven't paid the invoices, or the taxes, staffing, equipment, software, etc.
for me the bigger question is "How do schools of architecture prepare students for a life of not being the director? of not being the head designer? of being more than competent, but not being in charge?" because every office needs to have about 95% of the people doing the day-to-day work, but it also needs that 5% who lead, direct, manage, design and control the work. but do you teach everyone the same and foster the idealized goal of the hero architect for all students?
i can't imagine doing anything other than architecture. it is exceedingly frustrating - as it is so dependent on others and other external conditions - but it is a profession that creates effects that change the experience of the world. i think that is worth the effort.
I'm not sure the data supports these comments about 95/5 or 97/3.
The latest AIA Firm Survey includes the following quote: "Architecture firms with 50 or more employees accounted for ... 42 percent of all staff at architecture firms ...'
61% of architecture firms employ fewer that 5 people.
80% of architecture firms employ fewer than 10 people.
91% of architecture firms employ fewer than 20 people.
Despite the ongoing trend toward concentration, we're still a very fragmented industry, where small firms carry a lot of weight, provide a lot of employment, and offer entrepreneurial opportunity for anybody so inclined.
Also ... if you look at PSMJ's periodic Financial Peformance Surveys, the ratio of Total Staff to Partner/Principal typically runs about 10:1 to 12:1 industrywide.
Smallish firms will have a ratio of about 4:1 and largish firms may go as high as 18:1. But, as firms grow, so does the number of principals in those firms -- that just makes sense. It becomes a "span of control" mechanism, necessary to manage the firm and the firm's work.
However, it makes no sense to suggest that 95% of architects work for the remaining 5% -- the data just doesn't support a conclusion anywhere close to that ratio.
I agree quizz. The 19:1 ratio that olderthandirt is suggesting (conservative even) can not be correct. The Government even says 1 in 4 were self employed (based on somwhat outdated data).
Hi John who emailed me;
I am assuming you have been in the field for a few years, so you are probably experiencing the worst of the profession from a money point of view: low salary, and big college debt. This is not a profesion where you are guaranteed huge salaries, but you do not have to be destitute. I was talking today to a contractor who was giving me the sad story about an architect I went to school with who is struggling financially. He works by himself mostly on residential jobs, but that is not why he is making no money- it is because he just takes too long to do the designs, the drawings, designs stuff the owners don't want then won't pay for, insists on micromanaging every detail even though the client can't afford to pay him for it, etc. So there are a LOT Of architects out there who are not good at the business end, and basically don't make much money.
Sometimes we are our own worst enemies- I know many architects who seem to think if you are not suffering then you are not doing good architecture, and doing anything 'mundane' is a sell out. They are not necessarily related. Some architects doing mundane stuff are still broke, and some archtitects doing innovative creative work are wealthy.
However, with very minimal business skills, you can make a decent wage, even if you choose to work by yourself. Even if you work for someone, you can still make good money, but you have to be at the top of the professional heap, but I think that is like every profession. Those who show their worth every day get paid more than those who are mediocre. Both my husband and I are architects. We don't have that condo in manhattan and go out to dinner three nights week, but more because we don't want to than we can't afford it. I have lots of friends my age (51) who are arhitects, and we all have nice homes, sent our kids to college, are saving money for retirement, take vacations, etc. It's not the hedge fund lifestyle, but you certainly can support a family. I have always worked, so we always had two incomes, but lots of my employees support families with wives who work part time or not at all. (not as easily as on two incomes of course!)
We've also got some architects in town who own their own large firms and are multi-millionaires, making huge donations to hospitals and their colleges. That is of course the top of the heap, just like in most other professsions- not all actors make $2 million for a couple of weeks work on a movie. I have an architect friend who at 40 built a new million dollar home for cash. He owns a very succesful firm.
If you love the profession, then the money will be less important than what you are doing. My brother retired at 52. He was in sales, and was great at it, but he hated every day. For the last 6 years before he retired, he literally counted down every day. Now he is happy being retired, and he has lots of money, but he spent 30 years of his life being unhappy every single day.
So my advice to you: if you like the profession, stick with it. Don't blame others if you don't make the money you want to make, blame yourself and then set about making the money you want. It is possible to be at the top 10% of wage earners or whatever. I feel extremely well compensated for my work, and honestly don't feel like there is anything I want or need that I could not buy. (OK, I am pretty down to earth- I don't want a giant boat or a jet or a bunch of stuff others covet. ) The ones who are happy with what they are making are quiet. It is all of the people who (sometimes due to their own shortcomings) are not making money who are noisy and complaining.
Good luck!
archie -- great post, man!
... erh ... ma'am!
sorry
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.