3 ms·

Article assumes a situation where company can not pay market rate because there is "no money". No money means either they are not profitable and not funded enou

Article assumes a situation where company can not pay market rate because there is "no money". No money means either they are not profitable and not funded enough to succeed, or they are lying to the candidate. Whichever one it is doesn't matter because in either scenario accepting position is a poor move for a talented and capable candidate in an environment when there are many positions available for competent people. These insights terrifically simplify negotiations in this scenario to: "No thanks."

wpietri 14y ago
That's true only if you value money and nothing else. I know plenty of people who work at below-market wages for nonprofits because they support the mission. This fellow had some of that, but he also valued surfing time more than extra cash. People also value recognition, good colleagues, solid benefits, low stress, and a bunch of other things. Just because people value different things than you doesn't make them wrong. De gustibus non est disputandum.
- droithomme 14y ago
  Those claims are fallacious. It has nothing to do with the supposed greed that you absurdly assign to the engineer. It has to do with critical evaluation of the company's financial condition. A company that can not pay market rate because they don't have enough money can't afford to be in business and will not continue to do so for much longer. There are lots of jobs out there, just like there are plenty of potential romantic partners. Sure, someone could date a homeless crack addict. Perhaps those who don't do so are shallow according to the same sort of argument being used here.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    Well, let's test your theory. The article describes a real place that was being run on a shoestring. Looking at resumes, this was 2006-2008, so it's circa 5 years later. Are they out of business? http://www.kzyx.org/ http://www.kzyx.org/ Looks like they are still going. Just like every shoestring nonprofit I know. And the reason is exactly that people get paid in things other than money. They could also have run the radio station with market-rate salaries. They would have had a drastically smaller staff. But because they wisely recognized that money isn't the only thing that matters, they looked for people who could take substantially lower salaries but valued other things they could offer.
pavanky 14y ago
I see that you are not a risk taker.
- droithomme 14y ago
  There are reasonable and foolish risks. Only a fool takes a foolish risk.

wpietri 14y ago

That's true only if you value money and nothing else. I know plenty of people who work at below-market wages for nonprofits because they support the mission. This fellow had some of that, but he also valued surfing time more than extra cash. People also value recognition, good colleagues, solid benefits, low stress, and a bunch of other things. Just because people value different things than you doesn't make them wrong. De gustibus non est disputandum.

droithomme 14y ago
Those claims are fallacious. It has nothing to do with the supposed greed that you absurdly assign to the engineer. It has to do with critical evaluation of the company's financial condition. A company that can not pay market rate because they don't have enough money can't afford to be in business and will not continue to do so for much longer. There are lots of jobs out there, just like there are plenty of potential romantic partners. Sure, someone could date a homeless crack addict. Perhaps those who don't do so are shallow according to the same sort of argument being used here.
- wpietri 14y ago
  Well, let's test your theory. The article describes a real place that was being run on a shoestring. Looking at resumes, this was 2006-2008, so it's circa 5 years later. Are they out of business? http://www.kzyx.org/ http://www.kzyx.org/ Looks like they are still going. Just like every shoestring nonprofit I know. And the reason is exactly that people get paid in things other than money. They could also have run the radio station with market-rate salaries. They would have had a drastically smaller staff. But because they wisely recognized that money isn't the only thing that matters, they looked for people who could take substantially lower salaries but valued other things they could offer.

pavanky 14y ago

I see that you are not a risk taker.

droithomme 14y ago
There are reasonable and foolish risks. Only a fool takes a foolish risk.