Beg to differ. I (gladly) worked for considerably less than market rate (while still not starving) for stock. I'd do that again and I'd offer it. Yeah, I was committed. Getting paid market rate and getting an option, done that too. It was a paycheck and a lottery ticket. Much less committed.

That's great if you want to restrict your talent pool to college drop outs with no living costs or dependants.

You know there is a large gap between a living wage and a typical software wage, right? If the wage discount is less than that, there is no restriction to who can take the job, despite dependents. (Whether they should accept such a tradeoff is a different issue.)

except you're the one looking for a job

Jobs aren't created out of the largess of your employer.

Your employer's also the one looking for a talented employee.

> Your employer's also the one looking for a talented employee.

This, 1000 times. How can it be 2016 and we are still having this discussion? Particularly with the group on HN, who are generally speaking extremely valuable and highly trained.

If you do not bring value to your employer, you will be fired. That might be a highly liquid, difficult to characterize value, but it is undeniably a value-add.

Even on HN people like to see themselves as brilliant billionaires in the making.

"even"? more like "especially"

Yes, I realize that now...

We are talking about the hiring process here, being selected at all, how your financial prowess doesn't jive with the culture fit doctrine.