Transparency (not just on salary, but role/skill expectations too) would appear to build trust. What can firms that can't offer as much do, do you think?
Stating "competitive" while you know very well you're not is harmful in 2 ways: - candidates who know the market will be very disappointed after taking the time to interview, most likely resentful and they will spread the word - if someone actually accepts the low ball offer presented as "competitive" it means that they have no clue what the market is and you probably don't want to hire them.
You can be very upfront about it though, "salary below market value but most of our compensation package is composed of options/equity".
Some companies have no clue what "competitive"/"decent" really is, some do but are just trying to find someone to milk for cheap.
How might companies tackle the issues some have listed here of displaying salaries, while not deterring people (assuming they're being fair, not exploitative).
Any other words/phrases you've seen in your job travels/perusings haha (for better or worse)?
Clearly, being open about the salary gives you a big advantage, applicants know what they can expect and are more willing to spend time going through your interview process. When dealing with recruiters, I only answer their cold email if the salary is listed (among location, company name, tech stack).
One note of caution: if you advertise a range (e.g. 90k to 120k) you should have clear criteria in mind to decided what to offer in your range. As a candidate, I would want to understand why I'm offered 95k instead of 110k for example.