They are now being offered 70-90K range which used to be 60-80K just. a year ago
Feeling defeated.I work for K
AJgold
Jul 19, 22 1:49 am
inflation is real but employers don’t care about current employee
blackdogsketch
Jul 21, 22 11:10 am
You typically make the biggest salary jumps when you go to a new employer. Also a good chance to repackage yourself and move more towards what you really want to do. If a firm can't even keep up with cost-of-living increases...that's not someplace that's going to be good long-term.
ArchKid
Aug 4, 22 5:59 pm
good advice, except the whole industry is like that. Salary will never align with increase cost of living
Chad Miller
Aug 5, 22 11:51 am
With very few expectations no industries salaries have kept up with inflation. This isn't unique to the architectural industry. For example, if pay had kept up with inflation then minimum wage would be in the $25 an hour range.
The_Crow
Jul 21, 22 10:50 pm
In what cities and at what types of firms are new hires getting $70-90k?
Also if you're feeling defeated, why don't you go to those firms as well?
zonker
Jul 21, 22 11:52 pm
With a looming recession, I would not be asking for that type of money unless you are extremely intelligent and can shake things up. Average folks that are overpaid end getting laid off - too many are getting the big bux, when they can't pull that kind of weight. Look what's happening at Facebook - he's cleaning house of those that don't pack the right gear. Better to get solid experience and gradually move up in pay.
baboo.fei
Jul 22, 22 7:10 am
Would expect middle management to get culled first tho, the savings of getting rid of juniors don’t really justify the cost of losing those bodies since junior pay is low to begin with.
reallynotmyname
Jul 22, 22 9:08 am
When work slows down, a mid level person can pick up junior tasks to fill up gaps in their workload, while keeping a junior person occupied can be a lot more difficult. Especially the B and C team players who don't have a lot of initiative.
ArchKid
Jul 22, 22 7:53 am
its doable in big cities
przemula
Jul 22, 22 10:01 am
Can someone confirm this? There's new thread right under this one about licensed senior PM making 100k with 12 years of experience, also saying that he tried really hard and switched jobs frequently. So the gap between seasoned professional like that and new hire would be 20k? I don't think it's possible
ArchKid
Jul 22, 22 10:09 am
depends on role, city, market, skills etc...
przemula
Jul 22, 22 1:56 pm
We're talking about large city like NYC, LA or maybe Chicago (?). OP with 12 years exp is based in NYC, and when it comes to role it usually is PA/PM or something in between. What role a graduate can take and what skills he can have to get 80k?
ArchKid
Jul 22, 22 2:11 pm
With 12 years of experience, you shouldnt be just a PM. should be moving up in the ranking. Unless he doesn't want to get into management positions. Directors of departments make 150K+
ivanmillya
Aug 5, 22 11:10 am
Maybe I got stiffed, but my first job out of school was for an average multi-family firm in NYC, where I made about $36k ($18/hr) as a 1099. Right before I left that job, I was making $20/hr (still 1099). This was back in 2018. Some of my peers who had just graduated were making as much as 50k a year in NYC, but I don't see how that would jump to 80k for new graduates over the course of four years...
przemula
Aug 5, 22 2:12 pm
Similar situation here; I started in small residential firm in Chicago in January 2018 with $40k which was around $20 being on W2 form though. Now I make $55-60k and ask for $75k while applying because around 10 recruiters contacted me recently. Not licensed but will take my first ARE soon. How can a graduate make 80k is beyond my imagination - people right out of school here don't know real lumber sizes, don't know how to measure building, let alone put any type of set of drawings together. I've heard first hand stories of people in IT making good money in big corporations not knowing anything, but I don't think it applies here
przemula
Aug 5, 22 2:21 pm
^Jovan Millet, how much are you making now?
RJ87
Aug 5, 22 2:29 pm
Maybe its 80k with some type of bonus structure & they're just leaving that part out? Fresh out of school four years ago I was making 52k base with a 10k bonus each year. In the last 4 years the base has only gone up to 70k but the bonus doubled to 20k. So it's "90k" but only feels like it when one particularly large paycheck rolls around at the end of November. I'm not in a big market, so I could see someone in a large metropolitan area getting a higher base salary than I got starting out in 2018 & then getting lucky with bonuses perhaps.
ArchKid
Aug 5, 22 6:43 pm
Funny part in all of this, I had interviews when I requested 80K, and they tell me "I'm assuming this is with bonus included". Im just like wtf? How am I suppose to know how much bonus I'm getting.
ivanmillya
Aug 5, 22 8:12 pm
Przemula, I make $70k base salary right now, working for a small residential firm in Florida. When I initially got my license, I had a pay bump from $50k to 60k.
Adam Sitterly
Aug 4, 22 10:46 pm
The AIA surveys US architecture firms and curates a helpful tool to see compensations across roles and regions:
Check it out - I think you’ll find it relevant for this thread.
ArchKid
Aug 4, 22 11:42 pm
- Data is current as of Jan. 1, 2021. - You can get paid more than what is shown here
Richard Balkins
Aug 5, 22 2:26 am
Keep in mind that there is an upcoming recession that we'll be seeing cropping up around spring 2023. There are some pre-recession signs happening right now but a recession is all but absolutely certain. How bad the recession will be, hard to say but I would not expect it to be as bad as the previous unless the government does some really bonehead stupid shit.
Bench
Aug 5, 22 9:10 am
Regular reminder that you should probably disregard anything RB posts about with any certainty here.
Richard Balkins
Aug 8, 22 4:49 am
I only stated what many economists are alerting about regarding a recession looming.
It seems like this site's administration/moderators were full of it when they stated: "We removed all comments that were posted by anonymous users and left all posted by people using their real names. Too much anonymous, toxic chest-puffing going on. We'll continue moderating it and will only allow people commenting with their real names OR comments sharing thoughtful contributions to the discussion. Negative comments are welcome if they're smart and informed. "
Bench's comment above is not really a thoughtful contribution and is really a flame bait. My comment above, although I did not go further than stating about a recession looming and anchor it further to the particular thread specifics, it was to alert some caution about demanding more pay, at this time. What I was alluding to, is that right now, careful consideration about approaching discussions with the employer about a significant increase in pay. Many of the firms' owners are looking at the prospect of a recession and slow down in work and potential slow down in account receivables... such as when clients decide to put their projects on hold or even cancelling such projects. I didn't get into that because of other things so I haven't got into it or expressed what I wanted to convey and even still is somewhat haphazardly stated.
Bench
Aug 8, 22 8:25 am
My comment stands.
Richard Balkins
Aug 8, 22 5:27 pm
No one should even care what you say, bench. Anonymous people... no accountability. If you are going to talk about someone else, do it in your real name and stand behind what you say/write in your real name and stand accountable to what you say or write.
bowling_ball
Aug 18, 22 11:30 pm
It turns out, a broken clock is right on occasion, and yeah, Balkins is right. We're headed for a recession and not everybody can afford to give out increases to even match inflation.
Bench
Aug 8, 22 5:56 pm
To the contrary, you'd do best going back to the anonymous posting (you know, like you had for 3 years)
Richard Balkins
Aug 8, 22 6:06 pm
As I understand it, the forum administration and moderators had explicitly stated they were going to be deleting posts of anonymous users. It was stated in Thread Central. I have a better idea in mind.
SneakyPete
Aug 8, 22 6:49 pm
That was speaking specifically about that news article. Reading is fundamental.
Richard Balkins
Aug 8, 22 7:02 pm
I didn't want to sift threw all the back and forth between "Archinect" and "kikkidy". It sounded to me that while it was with regards to the particular thread but also that it was going to also be a new operational policy going forward as well. Perhaps, it's just a weaseling around what was being which further implies the administration / moderation practices of this forum are problematic and haphazard to say it in the kindest way I can.
SneakyPete
Aug 8, 22 8:34 pm
You mean the owners don't feel like they owe anyone consistency? Man. Private property sucks, eh?
Richard Balkins
Aug 8, 22 8:45 pm
It's what it is. It doesn't mean it doesn't cause frustration for the users on the forum.
Adam Sitterly
Aug 11, 22 7:33 pm
As I researched more compensation benchmarks, it turns out that Archinect also curates a considerable database:
This is a useful repository; worth checking out (especially in conjunction with the above-referenced ‘AIA Compensation Survey Calculator’)
Gregory Walker
Aug 18, 22 1:08 pm
what i will offer as observation: people getting far more than average starting out right now are going to be the first people let go. the need to try and make as much as possible while it's "good" is overriding common sense a some cases. you can't bump the whole scale up that fast and its not a sustainable model. and, no, it's not that owners are "finally" paying people their 'true worth' - it's an attitude that says they'll take more work than they can deliver on, pay whatever to get it done, and right size the workforce whenever it all slows back down. if you doubt me, look at how many people were laid off in march/april 2020 when the first projects slowed down and no one was sure where covid was going.
reallynotmyname
Aug 18, 22 2:01 pm
In my community, the majority of those cut in a layoff are low-level people with 1-3 years experience. They are perceived as being the most easily replaceable. New people at all levels who asked for and got a high salary are also the first to go if they are not meeting or exceeding the firm's performance expectations.
Gregory Walker
Aug 18, 22 2:12 pm
interestingly in 2008, one of the first groups we saw being let go were principal's who really weren't good at bringing in clients. more lower level at the same time. great middle level people actually doing the projects were the "safest"
Gregory Walker
Aug 18, 22 2:16 pm
RRA - we may agree to disagree about "never" going back down, but if you think because a few firms are paying 80k for someone with no experience means that bar has been permanently raised... hate to tell you but no, that's not going to hold. And, yes, we need to make sure we're making enough to stay in business and I totally understand why people are trying to grab as much as they can. But, as I've said elsewhere, it's not like fees are going up by 20% overnight - at some point all that compression will squeeze something out, no?
Chad Miller
Aug 18, 22 2:21 pm
I think you're ignoring the location of these firms. In NYC, San Fran, and other super large metro areas being paid $80k fresh out of grad school isn't uncommon.
Richard Balkins
Aug 18, 22 4:27 pm
That may be true. The firm would need to make proportionally more income to keep the percentage of gross revenue of a firm goes into human resource and keep the firm financially sustainable and healthy while also the employees having a happy and healthy life but the problem is, clients willingness to pay more. There's a price ceiling that has not raised up as quickly as the upward push in pay by employees. There's only so many projects that a firm can perform and deliver on with the human resource they have.
Richard Balkins
Aug 18, 22 4:32 pm
There are formulas of ratios and if you pay too much in the lease for the office space. or too much in human resources, or too much in anything, you got a disproportionate cost line item that can put your business under. The frugality of financial resources is necessary to keep a firm from going under.
Everyday Architect
Aug 18, 22 4:37 pm
As much as I'd like to cheer on the people coming out of grad school, I think GW has it right. When you're easily replaceable (as most recent grads end up being), you can't demand too much or you risk standing out for the wrong reasons. Wait until you've proved some value before you ask for the higher salary.
To add my anecdata to the discussion, I've been talking closely with a colleague about hiring for a new position and the people applying (1-3 years in the profession) are asking for $90-95k. They aren't getting it at this firm at least. The firm is looking to pay closer to $60-70k for someone like that (still up from where it was a few years ago). They're writing off applicants before they even interview them based on their salary expectation and their experience alone. It's not that they have an issue paying a big salary for specialized workers (ask me how I know), but they aren't willing to pay more than they need to for unproven ability.
reallynotmyname
Aug 18, 22 5:30 pm
May I ask what part of the country has 1-3 year people asking for 90-95K?
Everyday Architect
Aug 18, 22 5:56 pm
I believe the candidates that were asking for that much were based in AZ (I'm not 100% certain of that though). The firm is not in AZ and was considering hiring someone 100% remote.
square.
Aug 19, 22 9:53 am
Wait until you've proved some value before you ask for the higher salary
i get what you're saying here, but this is an unheard of attitude in many other highly educated professions. people are asking for salaries that they feel justify the enormous cost and investment of education, especially relative to other professionals and increasing inflation. while it might be prudent to not ask for such "high" salaries based on the economic history of the profession, if architecture wants to be a desirable/competitive career path, some things need to change, including the shit pay. with the long reliant myth of "love your work" being eroded daily, the pull of the discipline is going to get weaker. i think this pressure from the bottom is a good thing, even if risky.
Non Sequitur
Aug 19, 22 10:21 am
I think what needs to change is the "enormous cost and investment of education". Why do clients have to bear the cost of the staff's poor life choices? Not their fault the junior staff paid 50k per year for an art degree.
Chad Miller
Aug 19, 22 10:25 am
It's also not the junior staff's fault that the only way to get an accredited degree in architecture is to get a masters degree that cost's $80K.
OldJason
Aug 19, 22 10:36 am
Hey, Chad Miller.
square.
Aug 19, 22 10:36 am
Why do clients have to bear the cost of the staff's poor life choices?
because, whether you like it or not, that is the actual, real cost of educating the architects who provide you services, which in a smart business, would incorporate that into fees (again, there are plenty of other professions to look to here). ((as a side note too many architects are afraid to raise their fees, and clients know this, using it as leverage to keep costs down)).
it's bizarre to me to defend client's wallets and economic interests when we all know most of them could absolutely afford to pay more. and especially bizarre to me to take the client's side over your own staff/discipline.
Non Sequitur
Aug 19, 22 11:05 am
We raised our break-even $/hr by 35% this year and I've been writing proposals that are 2 to 4 times more than they would have been 3 years ago. We're raising fees as our our consultants. Clients who see the value will pay but that is not a defense for the idiotic cost of the M.arch/B.arch. It certainly does not cost 80k here to train an architect...
square.
Aug 19, 22 11:20 am
where architects view the "idiotic cost" of the degree, lawyers leverage value.
i don't disagree that the degree is way too expensive, but architecture is in a special position of proudly shouldering the cost on young staff instead of finding ways to gain value elsewhere; it's no wonder more and more people are leaving for tech and other industries.
my problem is not that you view the cost as idiotic, but you almost squarely blame the choice of individuals who are too young to understand both the realities of the profession and the complex economics they will face.. we shouldn't even be giving people this "choice."
there's also a lack of holding the profession accountable here- again don't be surprised when in 10-15 years there are few young staff to pick up.
square.
Aug 19, 22 11:27 am
p.s. there's also about 10x the architects in the us than canada, and while i'm jealous of the social systems y'all have, unfortunately the weight of the problem leans south.
Non Sequitur
Aug 19, 22 12:22 pm
Square, I think there are 10x architects in the state of California alone then all of the architects in Canada.
Everyday Architect
Aug 19, 22 4:53 pm
I'm a little late to reply to square.'s comment in response to mine ... but I agree. I'm not saying I like my advice, but I still think it's prudent advice given the circumstances. I've noted in the past that we need the profession to be more attractive to people from diverse backgrounds and circumstances in order to continue to be viable in the future. I think there is a difference however in people getting an average or slightly more than average salary starting out compared to those getting "far more than average" to use GW's words. I think that's the difference and maybe there is a better discussion about where those lines are drawn.
OldJason
Aug 19, 22 10:54 am
On Staff's "poor choices"...
During my 2nd year at my bachelors (2015-2020), one of the NCARB rep professors told us that it is very possible for us to get paid minimum wage-rate if we take account of the inevitable unpaid overtimes. That changed no one's mind... I guess that shows the brashness of being a student. Half of the people I am still in contact with now are already out of the architecure field or thinking about it.
What I want to say is that since at least 2010s, it should be clear to every aspiring architects in H.S., who are applying to high-ranking and expensive architceture programs, that there starting salary will not reflect their tuition investment. The schools should be more upfront about this in their webpages, but who knows how many architecture schools will go out of business then? We can blame the industry, clients, schools, but many of us (employees) did make "poor choices" (going to exorbitant schools) knowingly, and if we didn't know, we should have known.
Chad Miller
Aug 19, 22 11:33 am
I've maybe worked 200 hours of unpaid overtime in my entire 18 year career. I simply choose not to.
The_Crow
Aug 19, 22 11:05 am
Everyone getting starting salaries 10k higher than my current salary in an office in a major city that I've been at for 3 years. Something is not adding up.
square.
Aug 19, 22 11:28 am
lots of articles about how it "costs" more to stick around offices while those who move around get bigger bumps.
reallynotmyname
Aug 19, 22 11:46 am
In my career, all meaningful salary increases came from switching jobs. The trade-off was that I did not do 15+ years in one place and perhaps someday get offered a partnership stake there. I had to start my own business instead.
Chad Miller
Aug 19, 22 12:00 pm
I dunno. Over the past seven years I've gotten $35 K in raises. I'm also an 'owner' now, My situation is probably unquiet though. I'm in a smaller community so the firm I'm at wants to retain talent as it's hard to replace people. Also the firm I'm at takes care of it's people.
The_Crow
Aug 19, 22 12:12 pm
Yeah, I think I was excited about being on the ground floor of something and working my way up but it doesn't appear that leadership is interested in promoting from within. Not sure that's how the world works anymore anyway. Loyalty is not rewarded.
The_Crow
Aug 19, 22 12:12 pm
Also not to complain too much. I totally agree with square. that there are plenty of articles that illustrate that moving around frequently results in the greatest financial reward. It's a shame, but it's how the world works in 2022.
Everyday Architect
Aug 19, 22 4:45 pm
Keep in mind it doesn't need to be this way (moving around to grow your salary or get financially rewarded). There are plenty of things firms/businesses can do to retain people including pay them more, give them more frequent raises, give them ownership stakes, give them better matching 401k options, help them pay down student debt, etc. We claim to be a creative profession, but then never get creative when we need to retain staff.
Talk to just about anyone over 60 and they'll tell you the value of a pension in getting them to stay at a company long term. My FIL has stayed for over 30 years with the same company because of the pension. He knows he could have gotten more salary elsewhere along the way had he decided to take other opportunities, but the pension benefit he's a year or two away from cashing in on was more important.
trimtab28
Aug 20, 22 2:52 pm
Not sure where you'd see this barring maybe NYC. Going rate for entry level people in my city is upper 50s-low 60s. The rates you're talking about are what someone would get upon initial licensure where I'm at. And every firm is different- for what it's worth I got a raise on licensure that matched what I was hearing from recruiters if I jumped
echoing my comments above about a quickly approaching (and by some metrics already here) crisis for this profession:
“Over the past year or 18 months when we talk to architecture firms, their number one concern is staff retention and recruitment,” Baker told us. “It has gotten worse over time rather than better; there is a lot of demand [for staff] and not much supply.”
the pandemic gave people a lot of time to reflect on what is worth it, and i have a feeling the long hours, low pay, and overall low quality of life relative to other profession had many second guessing.
There’s a terrible shortage,” Fogarty told us. “It’s our single biggest problem.” Echoing Baker’s scepticism, Fogarty did not see the Great Resignation manifest at his firm.
naturally an owner would never admit or acknowledge publicly that people are quitting, leaving, or more importantly not available due to shitty conditions.
while those quoted in this article have a different perspective, it's missing the perspective of those who make up the supply line, which is a curious omission..
i do appreciate this bit of honesty though, and i agree this is at the heart of the matter:
"Fogarty places the heaviest blame for industry recruitment challenges on the profession itself, however. “We aren’t even competing against other architecture firms; we are competing against the fact that more and more people don’t want to be an architect,” Fogarty explained. “In some ways, why would you? You can work for Google and get paid five times as much for your starting salary. The issue is not better or worse because of any single event or mechanism. The profession just isn’t enticing enough to enter in the first place. You have to find people who love architecture with a deep passion.”
when this is your calling card, you're due for a bumpy road..
(overall, nice in-depth write up by archinect, but it would have served everyone well to include voices of the labor pool)
trimtab28
Aug 25, 22 11:22 pm
That is a good piece. I do love how it never so much as crosses Fogarty's mind "maybe we should charge more to pay people higher?" All these surface level bits about the importance of "culture" and "loving the field." Even with the AIA focusing on DEI in the field, they focus on giving more exam resources to minorities and women- never do they say anything about how the vitality and overall health of the profession would improve if we got wages more comparable to other professions, or that they'd even improve diversity if more people thought it had a quick and high ROI. Even the fact that they're focusing on this completely hollow DEI stuff that requires minimal change to the status quo over improving overall pay and work conditions really says something.
Look, I love our field and will take a pay cut within reason for a good firm work environment. But I'm not about to jump on a grenade for the love of it. When a field is dealing with brain drain, that really should be telling. And saying we need to double down on finding dedicated people isn't doing that.
Ones took a gap year
They are now being offered 70-90K range which used to be 60-80K just. a year ago
Feeling defeated.I work for K
inflation is real but employers don’t care about current employee
You typically make the biggest salary jumps when you go to a new employer. Also a good chance to repackage yourself and move more towards what you really want to do. If a firm can't even keep up with cost-of-living increases...that's not someplace that's going to be good long-term.
good advice, except the whole industry is like that. Salary will never align with increase cost of living
With very few expectations no industries salaries have kept up with inflation. This isn't unique to the architectural industry. For example, if pay had kept up with inflation then minimum wage would be in the $25 an hour range.
In what cities and at what types of firms are new hires getting $70-90k?
Also if you're feeling defeated, why don't you go to those firms as well?
With a looming recession, I would not be asking for that type of money unless you are extremely intelligent and can shake things up. Average folks that are overpaid end getting laid off - too many are getting the big bux, when they can't pull that kind of weight. Look what's happening at Facebook - he's cleaning house of those that don't pack the right gear. Better to get solid experience and gradually move up in pay.
Would expect middle management to get culled first tho, the savings of getting rid of juniors don’t really justify the cost of losing those bodies since junior pay is low to begin with.
When work slows down, a mid level person can pick up junior tasks to fill up gaps in their workload, while keeping a junior person occupied can be a lot more difficult. Especially the B and C team players who don't have a lot of initiative.
its doable in big cities
Can someone confirm this? There's new thread right under this one about licensed senior PM making 100k with 12 years of experience, also saying that he tried really hard and switched jobs frequently. So the gap between seasoned professional like that and new hire would be 20k? I don't think it's possible
depends on role, city, market, skills etc...
We're talking about large city like NYC, LA or maybe Chicago (?). OP with 12 years exp is based in NYC, and when it comes to role it usually is PA/PM or something in between. What role a graduate can take and what skills he can have to get 80k?
With 12 years of experience, you shouldnt be just a PM. should be moving up in the ranking. Unless he doesn't want to get into management positions. Directors of departments make 150K+
Maybe I got stiffed, but my first job out of school was for an average multi-family firm in NYC, where I made about $36k ($18/hr) as a 1099. Right before I left that job, I was making $20/hr (still 1099). This was back in 2018. Some of my peers who had just graduated were making as much as 50k a year in NYC, but I don't see how that would jump to 80k for new graduates over the course of four years...
Similar situation here; I started in small residential firm in Chicago in January 2018 with $40k which was around $20 being on W2 form though. Now I make $55-60k and ask for $75k while applying because around 10 recruiters contacted me recently. Not licensed but will take my first ARE soon. How can a graduate make 80k is beyond my imagination - people right out of school here don't know real lumber sizes, don't know how to measure building, let alone put any type of set of drawings together. I've heard first hand stories of people in IT making good money in big corporations not knowing anything, but I don't think it applies here
^Jovan Millet, how much are you making now?
Maybe its 80k with some type of bonus structure & they're just leaving that part out? Fresh out of school four years ago I was making 52k base with a 10k bonus each year. In the last 4 years the base has only gone up to 70k but the bonus doubled to 20k. So it's "90k" but only feels like it when one particularly large paycheck rolls around at the end of November. I'm not in a big market, so I could see someone in a large metropolitan area getting a higher base salary than I got starting out in 2018 & then getting lucky with bonuses perhaps.
Funny part in all of this, I had interviews when I requested 80K, and they tell me "I'm assuming this is with bonus included". Im just like wtf? How am I suppose to know how much bonus I'm getting.
Przemula, I make $70k base salary right now, working for a small residential firm in Florida. When I initially got my license, I had a pay bump from $50k to 60k.
The AIA surveys US architecture firms and curates a helpful tool to see compensations across roles and regions:
https://info.aia.org/salary/
Check it out - I think you’ll find it relevant for this thread.
- Data is current as of Jan. 1, 2021.
- You can get paid more than what is shown here
Keep in mind that there is an upcoming recession that we'll be seeing cropping up around spring 2023. There are some pre-recession signs happening right now but a recession is all but absolutely certain. How bad the recession will be, hard to say but I would not expect it to be as bad as the previous unless the government does some really bonehead stupid shit.
Regular reminder that you should probably disregard anything RB posts about with any certainty here.
I only stated what many economists are alerting about regarding a recession looming.
It seems like this site's administration/moderators were full of it when they stated: "We removed all comments that were posted by anonymous users and left all posted by people using their real names. Too much anonymous, toxic chest-puffing going on. We'll continue moderating it and will only allow people commenting with their real names OR comments sharing thoughtful contributions to the discussion. Negative comments are welcome if they're smart and informed. "
Bench's comment above is not really a thoughtful contribution and is really a flame bait. My comment above, although I did not go further than stating about a recession looming and anchor it further to the particular thread specifics, it was to alert some caution about demanding more pay, at this time. What I was alluding to, is that right now, careful consideration about approaching discussions with the employer about a significant increase in pay. Many of the firms' owners are looking at the prospect of a recession and slow down in work and potential slow down in account receivables... such as when clients decide to put their projects on hold or even cancelling such projects. I didn't get into that because of other things so I haven't got into it or expressed what I wanted to convey and even still is somewhat haphazardly stated.
My comment stands.
No one should even care what you say, bench. Anonymous people... no accountability. If you are going to talk about someone else, do it in your real name and stand behind what you say/write in your real name and stand accountable to what you say or write.
It turns out, a broken clock is right on occasion, and yeah, Balkins is right. We're headed for a recession and not everybody can afford to give out increases to even match inflation.
To the contrary, you'd do best going back to the anonymous posting (you know, like you had for 3 years)
As I understand it, the forum administration and moderators had explicitly stated they were going to be deleting posts of anonymous users. It was stated in Thread Central. I have a better idea in mind.
That was speaking specifically about that news article. Reading is fundamental.
I didn't want to sift threw all the back and forth between "Archinect" and "kikkidy". It sounded to me that while it was with regards to the particular thread but also that it was going to also be a new operational policy going forward as well. Perhaps, it's just a weaseling around what was being which further implies the administration / moderation practices of this forum are problematic and haphazard to say it in the kindest way I can.
You mean the owners don't feel like they owe anyone consistency? Man. Private property sucks, eh?
It's what it is. It doesn't mean it doesn't cause frustration for the users on the forum.
As I researched more compensation benchmarks, it turns out that Archinect also curates a considerable database:
https://salaries.archinect.com/
This is a useful repository; worth checking out (especially in conjunction with the above-referenced ‘AIA Compensation Survey Calculator’)
what i will offer as observation: people getting far more than average starting out right now are going to be the first people let go. the need to try and make as much as possible while it's "good" is overriding common sense a some cases. you can't bump the whole scale up that fast and its not a sustainable model. and, no, it's not that owners are "finally" paying people their 'true worth' - it's an attitude that says they'll take more work than they can deliver on, pay whatever to get it done, and right size the workforce whenever it all slows back down. if you doubt me, look at how many people were laid off in march/april 2020 when the first projects slowed down and no one was sure where covid was going.
In my community, the majority of those cut in a layoff are low-level people with 1-3 years experience. They are perceived as being the most easily replaceable. New people at all levels who asked for and got a high salary are also the first to go if they are not meeting or exceeding the firm's performance expectations.
interestingly in 2008, one of the first groups we saw being let go were principal's who really weren't good at bringing in clients. more lower level at the same time. great middle level people actually doing the projects were the "safest"
RRA - we may agree to disagree about "never" going back down, but if you think because a few firms are paying 80k for someone with no experience means that bar has been permanently raised... hate to tell you but no, that's not going to hold. And, yes, we need to make sure we're making enough to stay in business and I totally understand why people are trying to grab as much as they can. But, as I've said elsewhere, it's not like fees are going up by 20% overnight - at some point all that compression will squeeze something out, no?
I think you're ignoring the location of these firms. In NYC, San Fran, and other super large metro areas being paid $80k fresh out of grad school isn't uncommon.
That may be true. The firm would need to make proportionally more income to keep the percentage of gross revenue of a firm goes into human resource and keep the firm financially sustainable and healthy while also the employees having a happy and healthy life but the problem is, clients willingness to pay more. There's a price ceiling that has not raised up as quickly as the upward push in pay by employees. There's only so many projects that a firm can perform and deliver on with the human resource they have.
There are formulas of ratios and if you pay too much in the lease for the office space. or too much in human resources, or too much in anything, you got a disproportionate cost line item that can put your business under. The frugality of financial resources is necessary to keep a firm from going under.
As much as I'd like to cheer on the people coming out of grad school, I think GW has it right. When you're easily replaceable (as most recent grads end up being), you can't demand too much or you risk standing out for the wrong reasons. Wait until you've proved some value before you ask for the higher salary.
To add my anecdata to the discussion, I've been talking closely with a colleague about hiring for a new position and the people applying (1-3 years in the profession) are asking for $90-95k. They aren't getting it at this firm at least. The firm is looking to pay closer to $60-70k for someone like that (still up from where it was a few years ago). They're writing off applicants before they even interview them based on their salary expectation and their experience alone. It's not that they have an issue paying a big salary for specialized workers (ask me how I know), but they aren't willing to pay more than they need to for unproven ability.
May I ask what part of the country has 1-3 year people asking for 90-95K?
I believe the candidates that were asking for that much were based in AZ (I'm not 100% certain of that though). The firm is not in AZ and was considering hiring someone 100% remote.
Wait until you've proved some value before you ask for the higher salary
i get what you're saying here, but this is an unheard of attitude in many other highly educated professions. people are asking for salaries that they feel justify the enormous cost and investment of education, especially relative to other professionals and increasing inflation. while it might be prudent to not ask for such "high" salaries based on the economic history of the profession, if architecture wants to be a desirable/competitive career path, some things need to change, including the shit pay. with the long reliant myth of "love your work" being eroded daily, the pull of the discipline is going to get weaker. i think this pressure from the bottom is a good thing, even if risky.
I think what needs to change is the "enormous cost and investment of education". Why do clients have to bear the cost of the staff's poor life choices? Not their fault the junior staff paid 50k per year for an art degree.
It's also not the junior staff's fault that the only way to get an accredited degree in architecture is to get a masters degree that cost's $80K.
Hey, Chad Miller.
Why do clients have to bear the cost of the staff's poor life choices?
because, whether you like it or not, that is the actual, real cost of educating the architects who provide you services, which in a smart business, would incorporate that into fees (again, there are plenty of other professions to look to here). ((as a side note too many architects are afraid to raise their fees, and clients know this, using it as leverage to keep costs down)).
it's bizarre to me to defend client's wallets and economic interests when we all know most of them could absolutely afford to pay more. and especially bizarre to me to take the client's side over your own staff/discipline.
We raised our break-even $/hr by 35% this year and I've been writing proposals that are 2 to 4 times more than they would have been 3 years ago. We're raising fees as our our consultants. Clients who see the value will pay but that is not a defense for the idiotic cost of the M.arch/B.arch. It certainly does not cost 80k here to train an architect...
where architects view the "idiotic cost" of the degree, lawyers leverage value.
i don't disagree that the degree is way too expensive, but architecture is in a special position of proudly shouldering the cost on young staff instead of finding ways to gain value elsewhere; it's no wonder more and more people are leaving for tech and other industries.
my problem is not that you view the cost as idiotic, but you almost squarely blame the choice of individuals who are too young to understand both the realities of the profession and the complex economics they will face.. we shouldn't even be giving people this "choice."
there's also a lack of holding the profession accountable here- again don't be surprised when in 10-15 years there are few young staff to pick up.
p.s. there's also about 10x the architects in the us than canada, and while i'm jealous of the social systems y'all have, unfortunately the weight of the problem leans south.
Square, I think there are 10x architects in the state of California alone then all of the architects in Canada.
I'm a little late to reply to square.'s comment in response to mine ... but I agree. I'm not saying I like my advice, but I still think it's prudent advice given the circumstances. I've noted in the past that we need the profession to be more attractive to people from diverse backgrounds and circumstances in order to continue to be viable in the future. I think there is a difference however in people getting an average or slightly more than average salary starting out compared to those getting "far more than average" to use GW's words. I think that's the difference and maybe there is a better discussion about where those lines are drawn.
On Staff's "poor choices"...
During my 2nd year at my bachelors (2015-2020), one of the NCARB rep professors told us that it is very possible for us to get paid minimum wage-rate if we take account of the inevitable unpaid overtimes. That changed no one's mind... I guess that shows the brashness of being a student. Half of the people I am still in contact with now are already out of the architecure field or thinking about it.
What I want to say is that since at least 2010s, it should be clear to every aspiring architects in H.S., who are applying to high-ranking and expensive architceture programs, that there starting salary will not reflect their tuition investment. The schools should be more upfront about this in their webpages, but who knows how many architecture schools will go out of business then? We can blame the industry, clients, schools, but many of us (employees) did make "poor choices" (going to exorbitant schools) knowingly, and if we didn't know, we should have known.
I've maybe worked 200 hours of unpaid overtime in my entire 18 year career. I simply choose not to.
Everyone getting starting salaries 10k higher than my current salary in an office in a major city that I've been at for 3 years. Something is not adding up.
lots of articles about how it "costs" more to stick around offices while those who move around get bigger bumps.
In my career, all meaningful salary increases came from switching jobs. The trade-off was that I did not do 15+ years in one place and perhaps someday get offered a partnership stake there. I had to start my own business instead.
I dunno. Over the past seven years I've gotten $35 K in raises. I'm also an 'owner' now, My situation is probably unquiet though. I'm in a smaller community so the firm I'm at wants to retain talent as it's hard to replace people. Also the firm I'm at takes care of it's people.
Yeah, I think I was excited about being on the ground floor of something and working my way up but it doesn't appear that leadership is interested in promoting from within. Not sure that's how the world works anymore anyway. Loyalty is not rewarded.
Also not to complain too much. I totally agree with square. that there are plenty of articles that illustrate that moving around frequently results in the greatest financial reward. It's a shame, but it's how the world works in 2022.
Keep in mind it doesn't need to be this way (moving around to grow your salary or get financially rewarded). There are plenty of things firms/businesses can do to retain people including pay them more, give them more frequent raises, give them ownership stakes, give them better matching 401k options, help them pay down student debt, etc. We claim to be a creative profession, but then never get creative when we need to retain staff.
Talk to just about anyone over 60 and they'll tell you the value of a pension in getting them to stay at a company long term. My FIL has stayed for over 30 years with the same company because of the pension. He knows he could have gotten more salary elsewhere along the way had he decided to take other opportunities, but the pension benefit he's a year or two away from cashing in on was more important.
Not sure where you'd see this barring maybe NYC. Going rate for entry level people in my city is upper 50s-low 60s. The rates you're talking about are what someone would get upon initial licensure where I'm at. And every firm is different- for what it's worth I got a raise on licensure that matched what I was hearing from recruiters if I jumped
https://archinect.com/features...
echoing my comments above about a quickly approaching (and by some metrics already here) crisis for this profession:
“Over the past year or 18 months when we talk to architecture firms, their number one concern is staff retention and recruitment,” Baker told us. “It has gotten worse over time rather than better; there is a lot of demand [for staff] and not much supply.”
the pandemic gave people a lot of time to reflect on what is worth it, and i have a feeling the long hours, low pay, and overall low quality of life relative to other profession had many second guessing.
There’s a terrible shortage,” Fogarty told us. “It’s our single biggest
problem.” Echoing Baker’s scepticism, Fogarty did not see the Great
Resignation manifest at his firm.
naturally an owner would never admit or acknowledge publicly that people are quitting, leaving, or more importantly not available due to shitty conditions.
while those quoted in this article have a different perspective, it's
missing the perspective of those who make up the supply line, which is a curious omission..
i do appreciate this bit of honesty though, and i agree this is at the heart of the matter:
"Fogarty places the heaviest blame for industry recruitment challenges on the profession itself, however. “We aren’t even competing against other architecture firms; we are competing against the fact that more and more people don’t want to be an architect,” Fogarty explained. “In some ways, why would you? You can work for Google and get paid five times as much for your starting salary. The issue is not better or worse because of any single event or mechanism. The profession just isn’t enticing enough to enter in the first place. You have to find people who love architecture with a deep passion.”
when this is your calling card, you're due for a bumpy road..
(overall, nice in-depth write up by archinect, but it would have served everyone well to include voices of the labor pool)
That is a good piece. I do love how it never so much as crosses Fogarty's mind "maybe we should charge more to pay people higher?" All these surface level bits about the importance of "culture" and "loving the field." Even with the AIA focusing on DEI in the field, they focus on giving more exam resources to minorities and women- never do they say anything about how the vitality and overall health of the profession would improve if we got wages more comparable to other professions, or that they'd even improve diversity if more people thought it had a quick and high ROI. Even the fact that they're focusing on this completely hollow DEI stuff that requires minimal change to the status quo over improving overall pay and work conditions really says something.
Look, I love our field and will take a pay cut within reason for a good firm work environment. But I'm not about to jump on a grenade for the love of it. When a field is dealing with brain drain, that really should be telling. And saying we need to double down on finding dedicated people isn't doing that.