Well, that's insane, 14 hours a day for GBP 5.71. I can't understand the people who are working for them. A job like this could destroy people, it's jsut not healthy to have working hours like these. I hope they don't find anybody for this job, this is close to slavery.
Parritt Leng partner Kuan Leng said the practice had been forced to offer the wage because it was being put under financial pressure by an overseas scheme.
“We are taking a lot of risk ourselves, having to borrow against properties we own,” he said. “Because of the market in the UK, we have been forced to go abroad where the risks are higher.”
It's a partial look-at-me move calling attention to globalization and the thinning of purchase power parity in the First World. Deflating wages, 'out-of-control' inflation and businesses eager to squeeze juice from a turnip!
I, for a moment, would like to thank the Baby Boomers for raising me in such an awesome world filled with science and material wealth... and where slavery is rampant in the 21st century!
Before you retire, can we bring back debtors jails, labor camps and also maybe suspend habeas corpus?
P.s., I'm so glad so many of you fought in so many wars to end tyranny.
"I ... would like to thank the Baby Boomers for raising me in such an awesome world filled with science and material wealth... and where slavery is rampant in the 21st century!"
That is just so wrong-headed on so many levels....
That's right and so sad, if you compare it to the wage of a lawyer, it's unbelievable. You really have to think if working as an architect in such an environment makes sense, I think I'd rather be unemployed than working for a company like this.
If you can find a job right now that even pays minimum wage you will be one of the lucky ones.
The profession has really screwed young people. Revit only makes it that much worse.
Don't believe the established folks who come on here and say, "Architecture Rulz...great lifestyle....you have to do it because you love it...its not about the pay...we shouldn't be compared to Lawyers of Doctors...its not like we set broken bones or anything..."
Be very suspicious. In my experience these people are the same ones that have a vested interest in flooding the market with as many fresh faced, fresh blooded young eager beavers as possible, willing to go into debt and live substantially below the annual cost of living...if only to line their own pockets at everyone elses expense.
I just want to know, as long as we keep comparing oursleves to lawyers, does anybody understand the overhead associated with being a lawyer to that of being an architect?
I don't think lawyers need E&O insurance. What are the differences?
I ask cuz I know lawyers are billed out at something like $150-$250 or even upwards of that. Architects are billed out at about $125-$200. If we compare each being billed out at $150, what is the breakout of overhead in comparrison to overall wages?
forget billable rate: consider the cost of the stakes for lawyers vs. Architects.
granted this depends on the particular species of lawyer and architect
A baller laywer can be personally responsible for outcome a multi-million lawsuit. a baller architect is less-often responsible for multi-million component of a building project. (but we aren't talking about public defenders here people)
The scale of finances being exchanged and their perceived value of said exchange is quite different.
To help pay the bills we have taken in three attorneys to share office space. they are run of the mill general practice attorneys: RE closings, traffic tickets, wills, contract review. All in all their over head is similar to a small architecture firm.
They can charge $150 an hour since the time needed to complete the work is much smaller: 5 -10 hours for a real estate closing; using their templates, three hours for a will.
The difference is also that a lawyer can charge for every phone call he makes or receives from the client, every email received or send to him, lunch, travel cost, expensive suits, books, paper, printing ink, etc. Everything is billed. Nothing comes out of their own pockets.
I'm going to copy & paste a post I've writing in another tread ,but that pretty much sums up where the problem lays.
client: I'm not going to pay you $80 an hour
architect: but you pay $250 an hour minimum to your lawyer and accountant
client: Yes but they do something few people can do. You on the other hand, are just draw floor plans. Big deal. My 8 year old can do that too with a copy of Home Architect.
architect: ok...ok...how about $40 an hour
client: make is 15
architect : deal
So even if you want to charge like a lawyer, you can't because clients don't see your work as rocket science. The only way to get out of this mess, is if there is a minimum price for every architect.
It really isn't cool. And bitching about architecture in a non-academic sense really dulls down architecture as a practice.
Considering Archinect is one of the biggest architectural websites and shows up frequently when searching for all things architectural... clients of all sorts, potential partners, the "general public" and so forth stumble onto this website and see crap like this.
Furthermore, from my own personal experience... charging more seems to bring in more business.
I give clients three possible choices for billing:
1) Fee oriented. I imagine how hard the work is and throw out a number. Many clients do not like this because there is no real science behind it.
2) Hourly billing. It is by far the most expensive way to bill. It also does two things: tells the client how hard or easy the task is and illustrates the what the bottom line of your business actually is.
3) Itemized billing. A combination of hourly billing and "expensing" all personal purchases.
I stress the third option of being the fairest of them all. I show them my billing rate (at a discount) and give them a long list of all the little expenses. They can pick and choose what they don't want to be charged.
What makes this great is that they see how much every piece of paper costs, every run to the post office, every stamp, every piece of software and so forth. These things do add up and I can easily illustrate how costly business actually is.
Because I like to get drunk all the time and work in the middle of the day to the evening, I simply tell them that I will be adding lunch to that expense as well... so they better put me on the clock post lunch.
Despite this being a recession, I have doubled my fees. In doing so, being expensive some how equates to being better. This despite the fact that I really am not that great at my job.
So, going from a $25-$55 (completely fair) an hour charge to a $60-110 an hour charge has literally doubled to tripled my business. And while that sounds impressive, I really like to work as little as possible (taxes, loathing, wanting to move, not wanting to hire anyone).
So, by that standard, I'm fairly poor because I make crap for a lack of trying. That and I've been spending quite a bit of time over the last two months on trying to score a sweet RFP contract so that I can get a lump sum of money to move the hell out of here.
I agree with montagneux that we need to stop racing to the bottom and bitching about it and instead start to show that what we do adds value to a project and to show that it costs time and money to come up with a design. I posted this link because it's so disappointing that Parritt Leng feels pressure to exploit its workers even for a short term contract. Obviously lawyers, doctors, and others have made their case to the market and are rewarded for it. The question is how do we make our case? Is it more responsibility, taking on the development side, taking on the construction side? I don't know the answer but it's something that I'm constantly thinking about.
Mar 21, 10 9:02 pm ·
·
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.
Can I At Least Make Minimum Wage?
From BD online comes this story, London practice pays £5.71 an hour, which is below minimum wage and they want you to work 14 hour days. I can't believe that sometimes we're our own worst enemy when it comes to fees.
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3159752&channel=783&c=1
Well, that's insane, 14 hours a day for GBP 5.71. I can't understand the people who are working for them. A job like this could destroy people, it's jsut not healthy to have working hours like these. I hope they don't find anybody for this job, this is close to slavery.
That's what a lawyer makes per 2,5 minutes. I just hope the profession of architecture dies as soon as possible. It's no use anymore.
“We are taking a lot of risk ourselves, having to borrow against properties we own,” he said. “Because of the market in the UK, we have been forced to go abroad where the risks are higher.”
It's a partial look-at-me move calling attention to globalization and the thinning of purchase power parity in the First World. Deflating wages, 'out-of-control' inflation and businesses eager to squeeze juice from a turnip!
I, for a moment, would like to thank the Baby Boomers for raising me in such an awesome world filled with science and material wealth... and where slavery is rampant in the 21st century!
Before you retire, can we bring back debtors jails, labor camps and also maybe suspend habeas corpus?
P.s., I'm so glad so many of you fought in so many wars to end tyranny.
That is just so wrong-headed on so many levels....
That's right and so sad, if you compare it to the wage of a lawyer, it's unbelievable. You really have to think if working as an architect in such an environment makes sense, I think I'd rather be unemployed than working for a company like this.
part of the problem is that it shouldnt be compared to the wage of a lawyer
If you can find a job right now that even pays minimum wage you will be one of the lucky ones.
The profession has really screwed young people. Revit only makes it that much worse.
Don't believe the established folks who come on here and say, "Architecture Rulz...great lifestyle....you have to do it because you love it...its not about the pay...we shouldn't be compared to Lawyers of Doctors...its not like we set broken bones or anything..."
Be very suspicious. In my experience these people are the same ones that have a vested interest in flooding the market with as many fresh faced, fresh blooded young eager beavers as possible, willing to go into debt and live substantially below the annual cost of living...if only to line their own pockets at everyone elses expense.
Be careful of these wolves in sheep's clothing.
I just want to know, as long as we keep comparing oursleves to lawyers, does anybody understand the overhead associated with being a lawyer to that of being an architect?
I don't think lawyers need E&O insurance. What are the differences?
I ask cuz I know lawyers are billed out at something like $150-$250 or even upwards of that. Architects are billed out at about $125-$200. If we compare each being billed out at $150, what is the breakout of overhead in comparrison to overall wages?
forget billable rate: consider the cost of the stakes for lawyers vs. Architects.
granted this depends on the particular species of lawyer and architect
A baller laywer can be personally responsible for outcome a multi-million lawsuit. a baller architect is less-often responsible for multi-million component of a building project. (but we aren't talking about public defenders here people)
The scale of finances being exchanged and their perceived value of said exchange is quite different.
To help pay the bills we have taken in three attorneys to share office space. they are run of the mill general practice attorneys: RE closings, traffic tickets, wills, contract review. All in all their over head is similar to a small architecture firm.
They can charge $150 an hour since the time needed to complete the work is much smaller: 5 -10 hours for a real estate closing; using their templates, three hours for a will.
The difference is also that a lawyer can charge for every phone call he makes or receives from the client, every email received or send to him, lunch, travel cost, expensive suits, books, paper, printing ink, etc. Everything is billed. Nothing comes out of their own pockets.
If architects were as smart as they tell themselves they are, they would do the exact same thing.
Trouble is, they simply are not.
I actually agree with Winston on that last comment.
yeah its not that a lawyer can do that and an architect cant
It's that a lawyer does that, and an architect does not
Architects need to learn how to run a business better (something i witnessed first hand at my old firm)
I'm going to copy & paste a post I've writing in another tread ,but that pretty much sums up where the problem lays.
client: I'm not going to pay you $80 an hour
architect: but you pay $250 an hour minimum to your lawyer and accountant
client: Yes but they do something few people can do. You on the other hand, are just draw floor plans. Big deal. My 8 year old can do that too with a copy of Home Architect.
architect: ok...ok...how about $40 an hour
client: make is 15
architect : deal
So even if you want to charge like a lawyer, you can't because clients don't see your work as rocket science. The only way to get out of this mess, is if there is a minimum price for every architect.
Please stop that.
It really isn't cool. And bitching about architecture in a non-academic sense really dulls down architecture as a practice.
Considering Archinect is one of the biggest architectural websites and shows up frequently when searching for all things architectural... clients of all sorts, potential partners, the "general public" and so forth stumble onto this website and see crap like this.
Furthermore, from my own personal experience... charging more seems to bring in more business.
I give clients three possible choices for billing:
1) Fee oriented. I imagine how hard the work is and throw out a number. Many clients do not like this because there is no real science behind it.
2) Hourly billing. It is by far the most expensive way to bill. It also does two things: tells the client how hard or easy the task is and illustrates the what the bottom line of your business actually is.
3) Itemized billing. A combination of hourly billing and "expensing" all personal purchases.
I stress the third option of being the fairest of them all. I show them my billing rate (at a discount) and give them a long list of all the little expenses. They can pick and choose what they don't want to be charged.
What makes this great is that they see how much every piece of paper costs, every run to the post office, every stamp, every piece of software and so forth. These things do add up and I can easily illustrate how costly business actually is.
Because I like to get drunk all the time and work in the middle of the day to the evening, I simply tell them that I will be adding lunch to that expense as well... so they better put me on the clock post lunch.
Despite this being a recession, I have doubled my fees. In doing so, being expensive some how equates to being better. This despite the fact that I really am not that great at my job.
So, going from a $25-$55 (completely fair) an hour charge to a $60-110 an hour charge has literally doubled to tripled my business. And while that sounds impressive, I really like to work as little as possible (taxes, loathing, wanting to move, not wanting to hire anyone).
So, by that standard, I'm fairly poor because I make crap for a lack of trying. That and I've been spending quite a bit of time over the last two months on trying to score a sweet RFP contract so that I can get a lump sum of money to move the hell out of here.
I agree with montagneux that we need to stop racing to the bottom and bitching about it and instead start to show that what we do adds value to a project and to show that it costs time and money to come up with a design. I posted this link because it's so disappointing that Parritt Leng feels pressure to exploit its workers even for a short term contract. Obviously lawyers, doctors, and others have made their case to the market and are rewarded for it. The question is how do we make our case? Is it more responsibility, taking on the development side, taking on the construction side? I don't know the answer but it's something that I'm constantly thinking about.
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.