That's completely non-responsive to the question of hiring. Salary negotiations usually come after acceptability as a candidate has been established. (Indeed, it's considered a faux pas to bring it up before then)
The goal of any hiring process would seem to be to acquire the best possible candidate for the position in question, where "best" is usually determined by factors such as job performance and culture fit.
Note that if you're trying to come up with what the definition of "best" is as a rule that can be applied generally, you lose already, since that will vary based on what the job is, where the job is located, who you're working with, and many many other factors.
Comments
The problem with "meritocracy" is that the judging mechanism is inherently vulnerable to bias.
So therefore we shouldn't try? What should our goal be instead?
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-myth-of-silicon-valley-merit...
As for what our goal should be instead: equal pay for equal work.
That's completely non-responsive to the question of hiring. Salary negotiations usually come after acceptability as a candidate has been established. (Indeed, it's considered a faux pas to bring it up before then)
The goal of any hiring process would seem to be to acquire the best possible candidate for the position in question, where "best" is usually determined by factors such as job performance and culture fit.
Note that if you're trying to come up with what the definition of "best" is as a rule that can be applied generally, you lose already, since that will vary based on what the job is, where the job is located, who you're working with, and many many other factors.