Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a really complicated thing. I agree the salary should be relative to the amount of value you add. But what a "good salary" is, depends on where you live. If you do an amazing job, and I pay you an amazing amount. That amazing amount could vary depending on your cost of living. I agree in a perfect world that you should get paid the same no matter where you are, and globalisation will probably head in that direct…
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 candid…
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.