At some of my recent employers, for a couple standard roles, we have a single job profile but the expectations and salary are scaled with their skill level. Generally we combined their years of experience, skill level (based on interview) and current salary to derive an offer. So we would take the years of experience to get the base range, use the skill level to adjust within the range, then compare to current salary to see if we were fair or not. From there, the candidate is free to negotiate.

The problem would occur when someone had lots of years working but their skill level is below par. Basically people who have done a narrow set of skills over the years and haven't broadened their knowledge. If we give them a low salary, it would be insulting and if it is too high for their skill then it would be unfair to some of the current employees (salary inversion.)

> It does need to be mutual though.

No it doesn't. The hiring company needs to be upfront, but the candidate doesn't. The company has a budget range set for the position whereas the candidate is asking the question 'Am I willing to do this job for the money they are offering me.'

Disagree. Most of the time the company could in fact pay 2x what they thought was the top of their range for an exceptional candidate. It's a rare candidate who's in a position to take an exceptional job for 1/2 what they thought was the bottom of their range.

It's strange to me that US job ads don't state the wage being offered.

In the UK a ballpark pay figure is normally expected information

Depends on the industry, I see lots of management/marketing/bizdev job postings which just say something along the lines of "competitive salary offered", including roles where you'd guess the salary might be £20k or £150k.

'no one states salaries, but trust us - ours is competitive!'