This is a little OT, but it's been bugging me for a while. There are a lot of companies out there that don't want to increase a potential worker's pay by a large amount and won't hire a qualified and competent candidate because of this large increase. I've even heard that they would consider this massive increase potentially detrimental to the candidate if they hired them at this larger rate. To me it's ludicrous and can't think of anything reasonable on how their statements could be true.
I don't understand the logic of not hiring someone that's unemployed either. A good portion of a job interview is to vet whether they have the necessary skills or not. If they're capable, then what does it matter? If they're hired and they suck, it's time to review how candidates are interviewed and get better at it.
CSB:
At my last job I got a few promotions in title, responsibility, and work load without any salary increases beyond the yearly 3% if I was lucky. My boss knew I was underpaid and I even put together a well worded case with referenced to DOL statistics in the area to show how far behind my salary was to his boss, the CTO, could try and increase his payroll budget. Obviously that never went through. I saw the signs that they were on the path to bankruptcy so I started looking for better opportunities.
About half of the headhunters wanted my current salary info from me, but I would only let them guess and when they got close to within $15k of my goal salary, I'd say "around that area" or "that's pretty close" and they'd just run with it. They never got close to my actual pay since I was in a senior position getting junior pay. The pay increase didn't ruin me at all. Instead it let me live more comfortably, not have to worry whether I could afford to eat a more nutritious meal, and be able to put money away into savings.