Which is completely besides the point. Listen, I understand that point of view. I agree with it. I live it.
> My point is that, in my experience, great programmers place a much higher value on doing interesting work than they put on making more money.
Only after they have enough money to not have to worry about it.
Offering programmers minimum wage isn't going to entice them from their 6-figure job, even if the work is challenging and fun. Most likely their 6-figure job is already exciting and fun enough.
If "great programmers" work attitude is based on mood swing, business owner will be in danger hiring "great programmers". Cause what you just said boils down to human's mood to perform. "I'd like to do this because that's what I want to do now, I don't like to do X,Y,Z" where X,Y,Z are usually "testing, documentation, and mentoring".
Getting people to perform always comes to getting them in the right mindset! The more complex and creative the task, the less money matters in doing that.
If your work is mind-crushingly boring and repetitive, you'll go to the highest bidder. (That seems to be pretty much how investment banking works). But if your work is something you love, involves intricate problem solving and creativity, it will take more money to pull you away from a good job.
And for some reason I don't know, most (but not all) the great programmers I've come across haven't been all that interested in money in general.
The sooner people stop equating money with compensation the better off we'll all be. Money is but one small piece of the the puzzle.
Also, I think you're right - it's not always best to hire a great programmer, regardless of cost. If you can't keep them interested and engaged in the right type of problem, they will underperform under the crushing boredom. Get the right person for the job.
