Hacker News Reader

Comment by edwhitesell | Hacker News Reader

I don't mean this to sound like a negative argument against your points, but here's a positive spin on both of them:

1. This generally means it's easy to filter out candidates who aren't a fit for your organization. In my experience, 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. (Rare, I know.)

2a. That seems like a good tail into #1. The employees who aren't in it for the team/company/career filter themselves out. 2b. Or, it's used as a comparison for employees to better themselves. "I want Job xyz because I can make an additional $20k/year. How do I improve myself to get it?"

View on HN

Companies that filter out candidates that prioritize money as a high criteria are potentially doing themselves a disservice by not hiring on ability. An excellent coder who wants to maximize their compensation shouldn't be penalized for that.

If "fit" for an organization means not caring (as much) about money, that almost always indicates the organization is paying below market rate. I have clients that pay below market rate, and candidates who value money above other things will filter themselves out when they discover the ranges being paid.

Not sure I follow the second point. My example would be if Jane sees herself as a top contributor and earns 100K and she learns that Joe (who she feels is not a top contributor) earns 120K, Jane won't be happy. I don't think Jane will think "what can I do to earn what Joe does?", because she already feels she's doing more than Joe.

I might have misunderstood your point, but wanted to clarify my post.

I don't disagree with how things are most of the time, though I personally disagree with it in terms of how I try to operate.

Regarding the second point, I guess my point was: if the argument is that employees “value” is shown by salary and Jane is unhappy based on her perception of contribution, isn’t that a fault with management for not recognizing that and fixing accordingly?

>if the argument is that employees “value” is shown by salary and Jane is unhappy based on her perception of contribution, isn’t that a fault with management for not recognizing that and fixing accordingly?

I think we're assuming Jane to be a rational actor with perfect information. Jane makes less than Joe and feels she does more than Joe. Management feels Joe does more. Theoretically, management can tell Jane that Joe is paid more because his contribution is valued more, but Jane's unhappiness only exists because she disagrees with this valuation.

Either Jane convinces management that her self-evaluation is accurate, management convinces Jane she is being paid what she's worth, or Jane updates her resume.

I find it funny (and condescending) that employees are supposed to make money just a secondary factor where at the same time companies preach that it's all about the bottom line and nothing else counts.

On a practical note: I definitely perform better if I know that I am paid well. Money is the ultimate indicator of respect.

If you work for a company that preaches it's all about the bottom line and nothing else counts then I'd suggest you work for a shitty company. I would and have left companies with that attitude. For several reasons but a big one is that it's simply short sighted and ineffective. It leads to thinking like let's out source all our devs because it will save us short term money and the proves the fact that companies don't value employees as contributors but view them as cogs to output shitty products. If you are a talented engineer you don't have to put up with that.

There's more shitty companies than unicorn companies out there, by a landslide.

Sure but those aren't your only two choices.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

> 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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com