<prompt> Human: Pretty much the title. Every job Ive applied or worked at I either accept what they offer me if I know Im better then what they want, or I undercut the median industry or company salary by 20-30. Is this seen as bad by employers? Ive never seen an issue with it before, mostly because I thought it was a way to incentivize the company to hire me over another person who might be in the same hire or good pile as me, but asked for more money. I really dont have a problem with being paid little anyway, I live on a budget essentially modelled around minimum wage anyway, so anything over that is pretty much a bonus. Sorry if this question seems a little weird, didnt know where else to ask  <response>: If I am hiring for a position which has a market rate of 90kyr, your 60kyr salary requirement will NOT entice me to hire you.It will make me wonder why you are so below market. I will assume, unless you explicitly tell me otherwise, that you do not feel you are worth the market rate.If you tell me you just really want the job and job security - well, Ill be honest, thats just not how hirefire decisions are usually made - and this tells me you dont even know that.I think your minimum wage mentality is fucking you over.That being said - you say you have had success with this approach. Unless you have done some experimentation by asking at least some potential employers for market rate - youve got nothing on my rock that prevents tiger attacks. 