The problem with this is, with some marginal effort you could get vastly more money and interesting problems. Accepting a low salary out of some misguided notion that money isn't important to you is silly. Money gives you options you would not otherwise have - a great salary combined with thrift can facilitate an unusual amount of career flexibility. At the very least, you can donate the money you don't need to GiveWell and save a few lives.

It has been my experience that certain problem sets are only addressed by a couple of companies at a time. Sometimes you have to see beyond the culture and pick the problem.

It has also been my experience that a low salary is indicative of a very boring company and set of problems. A very high salary is also indicative of a very boring company and a set of problems that may stem from culture...i.e. poor testing, etc.

...somewhere in the mid to upper end of salary lies very interesting problems. I just don't make my decision based solely on salary.

Honest question: do you think that only Amazon has interesting problems to solve? I do not know much about the company internally, but there exist other companies that compensate and treat employees better, such as Google or Facebook.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Maybe I didn't phrase my thoughts well. Amazon's problem is providing "interesting" problems. Interesting problems also are usually very niche. The problems that Google and Facebook are trying to solve don't necessarily overlap with those being solved by Amazon. My comment was more aimed at the viability of Amazon finding the most capable people it could. It seems to have removed "culture" as a positive and the only thing that it has going for it is "interesting" problems. Without them Amazon will rot. So far they continue to allow people to work on cool things.