I've been on the other side of the table. When we needed people, I (along with 1 or 2 other people) would define the job and the wage range. This range was very wide, from 45K to 110K. And then we'd find people, interview, and associate a dollars amount we'd be willing to pay them. This included how little they were willing to take, for the most part, unless this person was a superstar. But we'd try to give them more then they asked for, since they really had no idea what the top of the job range could be. Done it more than a few times.

For a single job, out of a 100 candidates, we might find 3 people that MIGHT be able to do the job. We could not know for at least a couple of months. We occasionally were WRONG, which meant 3 months + (6 to 20 months) before we could get rid of them.

So of the 3, 1 might be worth $50K, the others $80K. What happens if I saw the 1st 80Ker as my 3rd interview? I would not hire him until I interviewed at least 10 more people. How do I really know he's worth $80K, as compared to what the others in the local market have to offer?

Of course, if I believed he was really good, and under pressure to accept a different offer, I might push the process. I've lost good people by waiting too long. I also need someone, as fast as possible, from the project perspective. But I'd rather wait and do it myself if I can't find the right person.

If in the end, I choose the "other" $80Ker, based on what? Dunno. But the goal was not to save the money and take a chance on the less qualified person, the goal was not to screw up the hire. Different skillsets and my confidence in the person's ability to use them could add up to the same dollar amounts of value in my head, but when I have a few people to compare against, I can really see how their skillsets map into the project needs, where they are lacking, and where we'd have to backfill.

So at that point the decision becomes a lot easier.