[brwnll]

I don't know what employers you interact with that believe a prospective employee should take a sub-market pay in exchange for the privilege to work at their company, but it's terrible.

There have been many good articles on HN about salary negotiation, setting freelance rate, and seeing through the "one day you'll be a billionaire because of these options if you work for almost-free" and the kind of nonsense your touting does nothing but set the conversation back.

[fecak]

There are more than a few cases where working for below market rate can be something other than "terrible" on the part of the employer.

Non-profits are the obvious example where the business typically just can't afford to pay market, but employees accept sub-market pay because they place value on the opportunity to (hopefully) help others.

Companies that offer extraordinary benefits to the employee that may or may not have direct cash value and are often not included when applicants consider "total compensation". Training and learning opportunities are an example of this. Short term loss as investment towards long term gain.

[edwhitesell]

I didn't say anything about options. I also didn't say anything about taking sub-market pay in exchange for a privilege.

I said that most employers would love to have employees where the salary is not the first (or even top 3) factors in their decision to take a job.

In other words, employees who actually want to be there are far more valuable than those just looking for a high paycheck.

[dpark]

> I said that most employers would love to have employees where the salary is not the first (or even top 3) factors in their decision to take a job.

Sure, and most employees would love to have an employer who isn't trying to pay them the minimum possible. The idea that it's a bad sign for employees to try to maximize their salaries while it's okay for employers to try to minimize them is an absurd double-standard.

[JamesBarney]

I think the only reason employers value employees who do not value salary is because they are cheaper.

[15155]

> I said that most employers would love to have employees where the salary is not the first (or even top 3) factors in their decision to take a job.

In any publicly traded company, this is an unacceptable viewpoint.

How is it in any way reasonable for an employer (who has a fiduciary responsibility to return maximum value for its shareholders) to take this stance and then admonish their at-will employees for it?