Keep in mind, the person deciding to hire you is often somewhat removed from the bottom line of the company's financials. Even though the end-goal is to make the company more money, the hiring manager is often not primarily motivated by that. They're looking for someone who will deliver quality work while fitting in well with the rest of the team (this part is so important).

So my advice would be to add a tinge of enthusiasm and a display of personality that you believe would mesh well with the "vibe" of the existing team. Something like "Given that you're working on projects A, B, and C, I think my experience with X, Y, and Z can really help improve both the velocity of the team, as well as the quality of our output". You're saying basically the same thing, but more in manager-speak (depends on the manager, of course).

I know these are all qualitative/subjective things whereas your statement is very objective, but that's because I don't believe the hiring process is all about technical merit and productivity. As much as we might dislike it, it's about "fit", whatever that means.

Why can't someone just be a professional who generates value?

Not that it can't be important; it can, but the downside is that passion often evaporates when things get difficult. So I'd rather hire someone who is driven by determination and discipline, and uses passion as a nice boost when they can.

It's frustrating to work with someone who gets sulky when we have to slog through the non-fun development tasks that are part of nearly every project. Yes, those parts are no fun, but the faster we buckle down and power through them, the better off we are.

Interestingly, I've found that the best developers I've worked with were the stone cold professionals who just powered through everything, whether it was enjoyable or excruciating. They weren't a bunch of grumpy old farts, either. They were some of the most friendly, jovial people I've had the pleasure of working with over the years.

I've seen employers describe their projects/startups and then they just wait for a reaction to gauge if it's something I would consider "fun", they seem surprised when I say I'm game for pretty much anything that solves someone's problem/has active users.

I even love taking care of the un-sexy tasks that nobody else really likes/there's a fight for, especially documentation -- I've written so many internal wiki pages I'm actually kinda sorry they're all locked up behind a login screen.

Any other task that sparks the brain, for whatever reason, is just a nice bonus.

Personally, I wouldn't ask the "why should I hire you" question, because it's a dumb question IMHO, but if I did and someone answered "Because I will make you more money than you'll pay me" and left it at that, I'd have some misgivings about that answer. It's tough for me articulate exactly why, but I just can't say I'd be thrilled with that answer. Someone who optimizes themselves for "make the company more money than I'm paid" doesn't really say much about what it's like to work with them. The statement doesn't do a good job of "selling yourself", IMHO.

Have you not accepted Babel into your heart?

  To transpile or not to transpile, that is the question:
  Whether 'tis nobler in the open-plan office to suffer
  The slings and arrows of EcmaScript 5
  Or to take Arms against a Sea of callbacks,
  And by asyncing, end them

Because fit. Because duty has limits, but passion can be exploited. In the words of Leonard Cohen: "He taught that the duty of lovers / is to tarnish the golden rule."

Wow, no, that's not even remotely true. My years of experience and track record of delivering completed products is my most valuable asset.

Enthusiasm doesn't get the job done. Enthusiasm and passion are fleeting.

Honestly, I cannot express how horrified I am by your reply.

You have had your entire interview to demonstrate your competence. At this stage of the interview, if you have not yet demonstrated competence, no answer to this question is going to get you hired.

A good answer to a bullshit question just demonstrates your skill at bullshitting. If that's what the company is looking for, hopefully you can find employment elsewhere.

My advice, when you get asked a stupid interview question, tell them why you think it's a stupid question. You'll either blow the interview, or find a place that values your opinion.

Second piece of advice, don't follow the advice of random idiots on the internet.

"Kryptonite."

Then thank the interviewer for their time, and end the interview; They've failed your counter-interview.

When interviewing I look for people that just don't sit back and do what they're told. Someone proactive who can think of different ways of doing things. I would like to hear an answer like "Compared to other developers I've worked with in the past, I make more of an effort to talk with end users and try to target the system to make it more usable rather than just getting the functionality done." That shows something that might appeal more than the last guy we just interviewed.

I know other people like predictable developers who can crank out code from a big Jira list. Maybe they would like an answer about productivity over costs.

As you can tell it depends on the people, there is no right answer. :)

I fear I did a horrible job of describing it in those terms, though. Or perhaps the thoughtful responses like yours have just helped me clarify my thoughts on the topic. Because in reality, I'm a huge proponent of the creative side of development. I think it's often so underrated by many companies and interviewers.

Creativity is absolutely part of the value a good developer provides, and creative developers shouldn't hesitate to discuss that in interviews.

It'll sometimes be the case that the company of person interviewing you won't value creativity. Which is actually super useful to find out, because interviews are a two-way process. If you're a creative developer, and an interviewer makes it clear they don't care about that, they've helped you by letting you know unequivocally that you don't want you work for them.

In the past, I've interviewed with some early stage startup founders and CTOs who are intimately familiar with the company's bottom line, and who appreciated simple, direct answers.

It's probably smart in most cases to reiterate the value you'll deliver. Working well with the rest is the team is absolutely part of that value.

The first answer I wrote assume you've already described your unique qualities, skills, perspectives earlier in the interview. Because all of those non-monetary contributions absolutely provide value. And they definitely can be, and often are, the difference between success and failure for teams and companies.

I think if you've spent the interview gently highlighting all of the ways you provide value, then when you're hit with a closing question like "Why should I hire you?", you likely won't need to spend too much time describing what that value is. Reiterating a few of the points would often be a good idea, though.

The second, more blunt answer I wrote is probably most appropriate if you're a contractor who has to come in, deliver something valuable very quickly, and then go away.

You spend the entire interview being friendly, likable, and at ease while fluidly and competently answering the interviewer's questions.

I know that sounds like a trite answer, sort of like the How to Draw an Owl instructions[1]. But interviewing is something you can practice for and become good at. Or at least better at. There are quite a few good books on the topic.

That's not to say the candidates you're competing against won't also be likable. But I've interviewed lots of developers over the years, though, and if you're a developer who is competent technically who also interviews well, you'll be far ahead of most of the people you're competing against.

[1] http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/572078-how-to-draw-an-owl

I'm the only one from my country that apply for this position (how do I know? they tell me).

This interview process, is not the first process. before the interview, there is a "skills assessment" session, that I am passed.

I have to know how many candidate left. Sometimes that can motivate you (for me of course).

It isn't to be told that you are a good value proposition. That is obvious. Just as it is obvious that the reason you want the job is to pay your bills.

The point of the question (like many of such generic questions) is to learn more about you than your skills.

You response would tell me that you are business-oriented. Tend to prefer to work with facts. Strive to be technically correct. Probably don't BS a lot and may have some issues working in teams that are sensitive to such types.

Of course I would integrate that with other indicators during the interview.

Be aware though, many of these soft questions aren't really about what they are asking.

That said, I'd judge the audience before I phrased it like that... (and you'd have to _actually_ be good)

If you're looking to edge your way into a BigCo role where you can look busy without actually doing much (hey, I'm not going to judge you if that's your cup of tea), you're more likely to succeed with equivocation, pontification, and bloviation (though not necessarily in that order).

I decided to err on the side of bluntness because blunt, to-the-point statements are probably easier for people take and adapt to their own circumstances.