An answer to the $34,000 question

Did anyone see the latest issue of Architect? They had a great (sarcasm) article about interns and pay within the arch. profession. It is called, "The $34,000 question".

Apparently, the answer to the $34,000 question, "Do interns earn enough?" is a meek, "No, but that's OK because they are dedicated idealists who love the work." What an utterly disappointing and embarrassing glimpse at our profession. Why is the low pay inevitable and why isn't Architect magazine writing about what's being done, if anything, to change the situation? This article says nothing new and answers nothing about a problem all architects have seemingly resolved to accept.

A profession like ours should not be relying on idealism to attract and keep talent. Architecture is artistic and potentially altruistic but not nearly enough of either that idealism alone will keep talent. Who are we kidding? I don't know if other architects like the "starving and angst-ridden artist" image, but it is stupid and inaccurate. If architects say, "I'm not in it for the money, I love the work". Who are they saying this for? Is it to convince themselves they didn't screw up on career choices or to convince others that they have somehow attained a higher calling? When did architecture become monastic? This assumption about our profession degrades it.
The warm optimism and anecdotes in this article about the few firms that offer alternative benefits to good salaries felt like veiled chastisement to those with second thoughts. This insultingly implies that people who are tired of bad pay just don't care enough and should get out or stop complaining. Or maybe the author's intent was to be that of a cheerleader pushing us on through the tough fight that is our careers. Well, I agree it's time to stop complaining. The reality is that most buildings that are designed and built in America are not works of art but works of economy and devoid of transcendental meaning.

Many architects are leaving the profession without leaving, by taking corporate architect positions. These companies pay well above the average at every level of experience. Corporations are out for profit. An interesting take for this article, instead of the fatalistic idealism, would be to study how those companies justify paying higher salaries to their architects and what can be learned for the profession as a whole.
The quote from the architect principle regarding interns, "We can't pay them $100,000 / year because they are not worth it." is especially poignant. Interns are not worth it, architects are not worth it. Why is that? Why after 5-6 years of high priced higher education are interns coming into the profession unprepared and therefore of little value? The undervaluing of one member of our profession undervalues the entire profession. Why is one of the main questions on the AIA website for perspective clients, "Why hire an architect?" Shouldn't our value be obvious? The other members of the construction and real estate industry, with few exceptions, are in it solely for the money. Architects are not on some higher plane. Architects play an important role in building but with increasing control and responsibility ceded to other professions: engineers, contractors, developers, architects are expendable.
Maybe architects need to go out of business. If we can not show our value and gain the respect through proper payment, we shouldn't just complain about it, or take it meekly as artistic martyrs. We should act to take more of the industry profit share, train to deserve better compensation or eliminate the profession altogether.