[fredkbloggs]

It is, in fact, possible that some aspect of a negotiation can be beneficial to both parties, but not for the reasons the parent suggested.

If we assume that your minimum bid is in fact below their maximum offer, then the market should clear: you should get hired. Under such circumstances, anything preventing a successful conclusion to the negotiations is harmful to both parties, since there exists a price at which both sides would be satisfied that they're getting more value than they're giving. Therefore, anything eliminating or preventing such an obstacle from arising is beneficial to both parties.

The corollary is that employers who insist on "social proof" place themselves at a disadvantage; they're less able to hire, and the people they do hire will likely be inferior. They are giving up value every time they enter negotiations, not by overpaying but by failing to engage in beneficial transactions. Those hidden costs can be, and often are, far greater than overpaying by some small percentage on the transactions in which they do engage.

[eru]

> Under such circumstances, anything preventing a successful conclusion to the negotiations is harmful to both parties, since there exists a price at which both sides would be satisfied that they're getting more value than they're giving.

I am afraid, reality is more complicated than that. There are opportunity costs, and there are threats. (Read up about the latter in "The Strategy of Conflict".)

Threatening to do both parties damage, can give you a better deal.