Define "good"

I don't mean that in an abstract way or with the kind of depths of thought about what we mean by "qulity" that drove the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance toward madness. I just mean it in the context of "good pay."  The question arises from this job posting:

We pay really well because we want really good content.
“Really good content” means well-constructed, well-reasoned arguments that are also extremely engaging.
Articles need to be a minimum of 500 words, though analysis pieces need to be a minimum of 1,000 words
We provide you with the headlines and an initial source
We’re looking for both weekday AND weekend writers. There’s a bonus for weekend writers.
We often promote writers to management positions

Ah, I think, they say they have high standards but compensate accordingly, so I was picturing a minimum of three figures and not just with a one or two at the beginning of the number. But my illusions about some shared view on what constitutes "good" pay was shattered an instant later as I read on:

What We’ll PayPay will start at $15/article during the test period. Afterward, we’ll bump it to $20/article for weekday news articles, and $30/article for weekday analysis articles. Weekend news articles are $25/article and weekend analysis pieces are $35/article. 

So, basically, they'll pay you what teen babysitters get per hour for an article that should take you several hours to write.  Certainly, any beginning writer -- and that's the only kind who likely would apply for this job -- would likely need more than hour to crank out an article of that length that is not merely recycled platitudes.

Related: http://writewaypro.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-working-almost-for-free.html
http://writewaypro.blogspot.com/2016/05/writing-for-free-is-not-deductible.html
http://writewaypro.blogspot.com/2016/05/an-idiots-guide-for-writers.html

Where to begin?

Usually, the answer is: "Begin at the beginning."  But where is that?

A while back, I started a discussion on LinkedIn about useless advice for writing. What topped my list was, "an essay has a beginning, a middle, and an end."  Writers may be told the same for novels, and it is really just as useless there because you don't necessarily start with what happened first in the story. In fact, classical works are famous for beginning in medias res. So, there is very good precedent for the beginning of a piece of writing not to lay out the framework to set the chronology.

The key thing is to begin in a way that draws the reader into wanting to continue reading the story, the essay, or the poem. And, yes, you should think of making it interesting even when your  reader is also your  teacher.

What doesn't work for openers? That question will get different answers. Today someone, no doubt thinking of Bulwer-Lytton  posted the warning not to open a novel with the weather. As some pointed out, though, there are novels that do it quite effectively. I would say that there are no set rules for opening novels, and that's a good thing. The perception that there are rules for opening essays, in my humble opinion, is what leads to very formulaic and boring openers, like the one I just read this morning. It started with "The Oxford dictionary defines... ." Now, that is the sort of thing I  expect students to rely on -- in high school. It's something they should get beyond in college. Certainly, it's not what I'd expect to find in a piece written by someone who gets paid for his work. It's true that you do sometimes want to use a formal definition to clarify how you use a particular term, but it's not exactly an attention-grabber.

Any thoughts on what you find does work well for openers?