I' m sure that many employers try to stay current on what comparable salaries are being offered by other companies in the same or related businesses, but there still are, in my opinion, many employers who make a conscientious effort to determine what particular jobs are worth to their particular companies, despite what salary surveys suggest.  It' s still the employer who get to decide what that particular job is worth to his or her organization, neither the survey nor the competition.  That may mean that the employer can' t recruit the best talent, or it may mean that the employer is happy to hire a second-tier of talent that' s willing to accept a salary within the range the employer has budgeted for a particular job.  While I think your point about doing the appropriate research is valid, it still doesn' t mean that employers are bound to a salary range that some "survey " suggests they should be paying.  Here' s another way to look at it: I may come up with a salary range I think is fair and one that I can afford to pay for a particular job.  I may not care what other employers are paying for the same type of job.  I may not be able to afford the top tier of candidates, but I' m fairly confident that I' ll be able to find qualified people, who need a job, and who are willing to accept the salary I can afford and I think is fair.  That may mean I have to hire someone with less experience, or less skill, or less training, but if I do the best job I can of finding the right person, I may be just fine anyway.  Here' s the analogy: Not every team in the National Football League can afford to pay for the services of Payton Manning, but there are still plenty of quarterbacks anxious to prove what they can do and EARN a higher salary based on their performance and their ability, over time, to fill the stadium.  In that scenario, everybody wins - quarterback/employee, team/company, owner/employer.