[netcan]

Say you have 2 good candidates for a remote job. The slightly better one lives in Warsaw, you prefer him. You offer them $60k. The slightly worse one lives in NY, you offer $100k?

Is that really how it would work? What if the Warsaw guy demanded $100k, would you pick the NY guy.

This stuff about cost of living or finding the salary they would be happy with is all baloney. Employers want to pay as little as the candidate will accept. Candidate want the maximum salary an employer is willing to pay them. Anywhere between those two an agreement is possible. Negotiation is (a) figuring out if that range exists and (b) trying to get as close as possible to your ideal place in that range. Same as any other market. Employers (and recruiters are even worse) are trying get have more information than the candidate earlier to help them win at this game.

Employers do the initial advertising, control the process, do it more times, have less at stake. There are some markets where candidates have the stronger hand, but they're unusual. To me, not advertising a salary range is like having separate tourist prices, charging a couple walking into a hotel reception late at night double price, etc. It feels like a dirty trick played by the pro on the amateur.

[redguava]

You make an incorrect assumption that causes an incorrect conclusion.

Not all employers want to pay as little as the candidate will accept. I can state this as fact as I am an employer and I do not do that.

As an employer, I want a happy and loyal staff member. Negotiating them down on price doesn't achieve that. I have never offered less than someones initial asking price, and sometimes paid more.

I think it's wrong to assume the employer and employee have differing objectives. We hopefully both want a successful relationship/partnership. Achieving a salary that both are happy with is part of that.

As for your example, again you assume that the employer makes an offer or the employee demands something. Can't it just be a discussion to find the most appropriate salary? That's how I do it.

[netcan]

Perhaps I overstated a little. There are of course other factors. An employers doesn't really benefit if the employee feels screwed. I don't mean to imply that the process is purely cold & inhuman.

However, there is an underlying economic reality here. It's a negotiation over price. The employee has a minimum salary they would accept, some larger amount where they feel satisfied and less likely to look for an alternative job. But, they always want more and if they think they can get more, they will often try. You as the employer also most likely have maximum you are willing to pay and a lower amount that you would prefer to pay.

Even if it manifests as a discussion, this is in many real ways just a veneer over that underlying reality. You are not really offering the Warsaw candidate less then the NY one because they have a lower cost of living. You are offering it because it matches their expectations and they are likely to accept it which is in turn because their alternative are probably comparable. Not advertising a salary range leaves you the opportunity to take advantage of that possibility.

I do think we should be civil and nice and ethical. After all, my problem with undisclosed salary is that it isn't nice. Lets be honest though.