[jart]

How is that screwing someone over? Maybe the company said that because the candidate was slightly underqualified for the role, and they would only hire if they felt like they were getting a deal and not taking too much risk. The low ball offer is better than a no. If I was being hired like that, I might view it as a foot in the door to prove how valuable I am. Besides you can always keep interviewing after you're hired to find better offers. Even if you don't take them, it'll give you more bargaining power.

[paretoer]

I would say it is a completely underhanded way to negotiate and I love negotiating. The only good answer to that bullshit question is "The maximum you are willing to pay". Then you can start over with a real negotiation.

The best way to understand the company culture is by what is asked on the interview and what the person doing the interview is like.

This question tells you everything you need to know about the company culture and that it is not going to be a good experience.

[jart]

Underhanded? Why don't you tell me what it means to you? If someone asked me what the minimum money I'm willing to take is, then I guess I might think they're the kind of company that would ask me questions like, "what's the minimum amount of RAM your program will need in production?" and stuff like that. Shrug.