[niuzeta]

I'd love to have it explained if it wasn't a sarcasm.

I'm not trying to challenge you, but as an employee I'd always thought that a tech company that supports the infrastructure would look better on resume than one that depends on it. I'd like to hear why.

[shadowmint]

I can't answer for jblow, but in that position I would hire someone with a history of choosing to work on something they cared about rather than someone with more technical experience in a second.

People who are 'switched on'^ are astonishingly more valuable than people who come to the office and manage to passably succeed at the daily task list they're assigned.

^ <-- This is an arbitrary term I use for people who come to work and care about what they do, engage with other coworkers and generally involve themselves in doing the work because they care about the work, rather than having a 'home life' of things they care about, and not caring about work at all, other than to get money. ...it's easy to tell in person when you work with someone, but much harder from an interview or resume. A history of working at places you cared about is a good indicator in my experience, limited as it is.

[gaius]

More valuable in the sense that you can get more work out of them for less pay< i assume you mean. What's wrong with market rates + overtime? unless you"re pocketing it yourself!