I'm no longer in a management position and wouldn't post what is currently private company info on HN, but I'll tell you how it worked at literally every company I've worked at that is not a very small startup:

There is an internal document that specifies each level and the exact comp bands for each role (like all companies there is a range of salaries but it is specified, and again this is the practice a multiple companies I've worked at). There is a lower and upper bound of salary for level, target bonuses are fixed at a percent for ranges of levels and the same goes for equity grants.

The details of what defines each level of seniority is clearly spelled out in terms of typical ranges of previous experience, responsibilities of the role, reporting structure, assumed level of autonomy etc. These are also calibrated across teams at each review cycles and continually kept up to date.

During interviews there are set guidelines for how well a candidate performs given the target level of the role they are applying for an assess which level is appropriate.

This is not the same as saying

"don't actually know what they would be willing to pay someone."

and

"it depends on a range of factors"

At every company that is not sub 100 employees that "range of factors" is clearly defined. I honestly have a hard time believing you've worked recruiting for any major tech company and haven't come across similarly detailed documentation regarding levels, comp bands, and evaluation of candidates.

It's ok if it depends on a range of factors, but those factors should be detailed in the job posting. The candidate should be able to read the ad and calculate what their salary would likely be based on the company's salary determination process.

Most importantly, the ad should reveal the position's maximum salary, so job seekers know how much money is on the table. Ideally, median and average salaries would also be listed.

>>the ad should reveal the position's maximum salary,

Noble goal that I feel is completely naive about human psychology.

I believe that exceedingly few of us have sufficient self-awareness and humility to see a range of e.g. "100-200k", and recognize easily that our performance and skill and history and capability is worth 120k, and will not feel scammed and underappreciated.

The prevailing wisdom on HN is empathically NOT "be happy with what you're worth", it's "ask for more more more", completely prior to any discussion of person's actual history, skillset, contribution, productivity, etc. And that's OK! We are human beings and inherently selfish and if we don't look after ourselves, who will? But it's disingenuous to then pretend that publication of a salary range will have any outcome other than all candidates expecting the top or slightly above... and I personally feel that will only result in employers pushing down the salary to match the average candidate.

They have the option to keep looking in their job search if they feel like they are not being valued enough.

If they interviewed around and all offers they received were around ~120k, then it should be a wake up call that their expectations do not match reality.

You know they don't pay a single number, but have a defined range for the role.

And if they find someone who is outside that range, they will bump them up to the next role with the bigger range.

When I worked at eBay the salary bands for each level were well defined and shared internally. If they needed to pay you more than the top of the range, they bumped you to the next level to do it.

It would be very easy for them to publish the ranges publicly.