[duxup]

Why can't you just tell them a range you're offering?

[dboreham]

Because then the candidate will be upset when you lowball them because they're not as strong or experienced as your range max merits.

[duxup]

And you won't feel the same when someone picks a number?

[pdimitar]

That seems to be the going theory in these circles, yes. If there were no initial expectations then the candidate can't feel low-balled.

[BurningFrog]

Might be a way to filter out the Perpetually Angry Engineers...

[BurningFrog]

I think that question applies equally to both parties.

[tomp]

No it doesn’t. The company is fundamentally in a much better negotiating position (they have much more data on salaries) and carry way less risk than the employee (a company has many employees, each employee has just one job).

[BurningFrog]

I see this kind of argument a lot, and I don't think it's valid in general. People confuse "big" with "having power over me", or something.

In this case, obviously a job seeker does have many possible employers to apply to.

[CRConrad]

In each negotiation about a position, the company is negotiating only about one of its many positions; the candidate[1] about what will (usually) be their only job. And companies usually, AFAIK, get a lot more applications[1] per position than each applicant[1] gets offers per job search.

So no, AFAICS you are wrong and the original thesis of "the company holds the advantage" is correct.

___

[1]: Consider the connotations of those words.