No one is "owed" anything, I'm simply pointing out two things:

1. Be skeptical of offerings that are below market rate in exchange for intangibles, like being "part of something". You often discover that there are certain people on the organization who get to both be a part of something and have good compensation. Now, if the argument is "the package has other benefits like retirement etc etc, then sure, that is orthogonal to my argument about "sacrifice". In fact, if you simply enjoy the work then I also think that's fine. I'm saying don't be convinced about something's importance. Notice in my comment I specifically called out startups and gov.

2. This entity seems to find seemingly limitless pockets for other things, making this sacrifice suspicious.

Fundamentally I believe in treating your employees well. Sometimes amazing tasks require arbitrary salary sacrifices, more often though someone's taking a big paycheck.

If I remember correctly, my benefits when I worked as a subcontractor for the federal government were fantastic. Definitely helped make up for the lower pay.

What kind of benefits are there compared to private sector? Care to elaborate more on this? Or it's too sensitive?

According to this [1]:

* Good health care

* Lots of time off

* A defined-benefit pension plan

* Good support for parents

I have a hard time believing that all of these combined will make up for the difference in pay compared to an equivalent private sector job in New York, SV, Seattle or even Austin.

We all value things differently. I'd rather have more time off than a market salary. I'm not going to lay on my deathbed and wish I had committed extra lines of code.

Some people don't find New York, SV, Seattle, or even Austin to be the utopias that others do. That alone gives strong incentive for some people to take that trade. Never mind the less tangible things like what toomuchtodo references.

> In what world are you owed a Silicon Valley salary? Only at a Silicon Valley company, and even then only if you signed the piece of paper that offered it.

In a world where you are highly sure of getting what you paid for. You don't seem to complain about Govt paying 800million for stuff that does not work, but about people getting paid what they would elsewhere.

Those are some logical long jumps. How do you know I don't complain about government waste? And how do you know that I do complain about people getting paid what they're worth?

There are a lot of intangibles in the world, and personal motivation systems are the battlegrounds for them.

Different people value different things. Trust me, that's okay.

What I don't understand is this. The Govt. is rich, and I'm not. I have something they want. I live in a capitalist country. Why not charge them for what I'm worth. This makes no sense. I would agree to not charge money for some foundation that serves poor people, but the Govt? That's plain immature/stupid.

A few things. First, six figures is rich by almost any standard except Silicon Valley. Second, you don't live in an exclusively capitalist country, and even if you did, that doesn't mean you have to be entirely financially motivated by everything you ever do. Are you familiar with charity organizations? Volunteer services? I don't know, basic human decency which goes unrewarded each and every day? Third, these people are charging what they're worth: a moderate salary, good benefits, and problems they want to work on. Fourth, you really don't think a more efficient government benefits the poor?

A better healthcare infrastructure (I'm not saying healthcare.gov is "the answer," but it's the right direction) literally saves lives. What other definition of serving people can you possibly have?

The simple answer here is that government agencies are funded by congressional appropriations and salaries are regulated. The "government" may be rich, but that doesn't imply that it's easy to pay people market rates, and even if it were, there's a finite budget out of which to pay them that could instead be used to hire more people.

In many ways I'm actually glad this situation exists: it has the effect of filtering out people that care more about their market worth than the mission.

If people were concerned about the highest salary available to them, we would not have academics and NGOs.

People are motivated by different things. It is not better or worse to be primarily motivated by a salary that exists in one place, but, if you want a Silicon Valley salary, then perhaps Silicon Valley is the place that you should work.

>In what world are you owed a Silicon Valley salary?

On the flip side, in what world are employers owed cheap labor?

Nowhere. Is this little govt project run by captured slaves from the far off land of Siliconia Valley?

Fallacy by appeal to the extreme.