That's probably because the game is not useless... for one side.
If you find a guy who is good at doing his job, but has no idea about its market value, and asks for half of what he could get, great! You just got a 50% discount. Imagine how hard he will work in order to get a 5% salary raise... which will still be a 45% discount.
If that guy is already working for you (with the 50% discount) and you post a new job listing for a similar position, with the offer of market salary, he may find out. And he will not be happy.
Why don't you simply offer 50% of the market salary? Because you do not want to limit your applicant pool; you need a certain amount of competent people, and they are hard to find. For example, if you need three people, you may find three that ask for 100%, 90%, and 50% of the market salary respectively, and you can hire all three. If you offered 50%, you would have only found one. If you offered 100%, you would not get the occassional discount.
Long interviews are usually more costly for the employee than for the employer. The employee usually needs to prepare for the interview, travel to the new place, and take the interview typically during working hours, which probably means that he needs a day off. On the other hand, the employer does the interview at his own place, during working hours, giving the same prepared questions to everyone, so the only cost is literally the time during the interview. So, if something costs 3 hours to me, but 3 days of vacation to you, at the end I can offer you 10% less than I think you are worth, and there is a chance you will take it to avoid having to do more interviews for 3 more days of vacation each. (Telling you my offer beforehand would save you those 3 days, so you wouldn't be so pressed to accept it.)
That’s interesting. Shows the importance of discussing salary openly which is still pretty taboo in some regions. If this weren’t protected I have no doubt companies would use ad targeting tech to show different rates to people
This almost suggests that companies should post a low offer initially, and gradually raise it until they get enough competent hires (ignoring the extra time this takes)
The taboo of discussing salary is just a tool to keep the employees in the dark, so that it's easier to negotiate with those who are less market savvy.
I have also heard the reasons why it is "also good for the employees". Like, "what if you are more productive than your colleagues, and you get a higher salary than them, then they would be jealous of you, and it would make the workplace interaction awkward". Yeah, pull the other one! In real life, if you do similar things, the differences in salaries are random, depending on negotiating skills, and the market situation in the year each employee was hired. And, of course, geographical ___location; the most important job skill is to be born on the right side of the border.
> post a low offer initially, and gradually raise it
If you do this publicly, the people who accepted the initial offer will notice they made a mistake, and will either ask for a raise or start doing interviews with other companies.
If you find a guy who is good at doing his job, but has no idea about its market value, and asks for half of what he could get, great! You just got a 50% discount. Imagine how hard he will work in order to get a 5% salary raise... which will still be a 45% discount.
If that guy is already working for you (with the 50% discount) and you post a new job listing for a similar position, with the offer of market salary, he may find out. And he will not be happy.
Why don't you simply offer 50% of the market salary? Because you do not want to limit your applicant pool; you need a certain amount of competent people, and they are hard to find. For example, if you need three people, you may find three that ask for 100%, 90%, and 50% of the market salary respectively, and you can hire all three. If you offered 50%, you would have only found one. If you offered 100%, you would not get the occassional discount.
Long interviews are usually more costly for the employee than for the employer. The employee usually needs to prepare for the interview, travel to the new place, and take the interview typically during working hours, which probably means that he needs a day off. On the other hand, the employer does the interview at his own place, during working hours, giving the same prepared questions to everyone, so the only cost is literally the time during the interview. So, if something costs 3 hours to me, but 3 days of vacation to you, at the end I can offer you 10% less than I think you are worth, and there is a chance you will take it to avoid having to do more interviews for 3 more days of vacation each. (Telling you my offer beforehand would save you those 3 days, so you wouldn't be so pressed to accept it.)
Probably a few more reasons I forgot now.