As for caracarn's perspective, I find it odd. Are you in HR, caracarn? I've interacted with a lot of HR folks in my work as a negotiation adviser and I don't find that attitude to be common in folks who make a career of hiring people. Maybe you sit in a business unit?
As others have said, there is rarely (if ever) a benefit to the interviewee to put the first number on the table; it becomes a screening device for the employer. Too low a number and subsequent salary offer will be lower than it would be otherwise; too high a number and it becomes a reason to move on to a different candidate with "more reasonable expectations." I find it disingenuous to hear "I need a number to work with" on the employer side. Make an offer based on the candidate's qualifications and then go from there. If an employer "needs" a number from a candidate to get that conversation rolling, I would gently suggest the employer is unprepared, inexperienced, or strategically fishing for information to use to the employer's advantage.
Beyond that, MA recently passed legislation that makes it illegal for employers to ask about salary history precisely because of the adverse impacts on the candidate. An employer has a planned salary range for the job; the candidate's history has absolutely no relationship to what they should be paid for the job they are interviewing for. I would argue the same logic applies to asking what a candidate "expects" to earn. How to answer it? "I expect to be paid a competitive market-based salary based on my qualifications, experience, and fit for the role."
I am not in HR, have been the top level IT person in the last four companies I have been a part of and utilized this process and as often times as not I am fighting my HR department to get the right candidate.
It would be disingenuous to not realize that any discussion with two parties over a common good is not a negotiation. My negotiating process just does not want to waste time with a bunch of dancing. I'd like someone to explain to me how, in a position where both parties know what they want (you know what you want to make, and I know what I can/am allowed/am willing to pay) how going back and forth three, four or more times is better? If each side sticks within their range you're either going to get to an overlap point or the negotiation will end and we will walk away from each other, so why not get where both sides are happy faster?
Our hiring process here for example is identify the candidates we want to talk with, HR does a base phone screen (does not require any salary info but it is asked). If they offer that up it certainly sets a baseline. We'd all be fools not to understand that. If you are willing to work for $50K why would I offer you more than that? I'm also not a jerk and understand that dynamic so that's why I specifically do not ask for previous salary, I ask what I need to offer them so they will take the job. I will admit, most candidates have never heard this before, so they start to offer up what they were paid in most cases. I then ask, "Thanks for that, but I did not ask what your last job paid, I'm asking what you need us to offer you that would get you to take the job." Sometimes they offer the same number. Sometimes they offer less. Again, I can't control if people are uncomfortable asking for what they really want, and since I'm not a fool if they do offer less, then I certainly accept their position as truthful and we move on. Sometimes they offer more, and in that case I also take them at their word. I then ask if there are any other demands that need to be met that I should be aware of (I'm looking for changes they may want to vacation, etc.). Again the goal is to keep this process moving. We're both busy people and exchanging phone calls and e-mails is wasteful. If they need outside our range (not all employers published the range) I will tell them so but leave it at that. Some say they are flexible or that is close enough and would be willing to take that. Others reestablish the importance of their number. At some point in this process I also will likely have stated my goal to not waste either of our time if we can't come to a salary that works for us. To your point, we should both know a general thing about the right ranges, so this really should not be that difficult or uncomfortable. I really do not see how it is any different than what most of us do with cars these days where we walk into a dealer knowing what a good price is and getting it or walking out. I do agree if one or the other party is unprepared, then that will likely be to their detriment. I'm not looking to hire people who do not know how to prepare, so maybe it weeds out the bad apples.
So at times I will have a candidate I want that exceeds our range. It's my job then to build the case with HR (and my manager) on why this stretch makes sense. If I can't do that, I've at least been upfront with the candidate that they were out of the range the company had budgeted. On the flip side, I most certainly have had people that we would have paid more to, had they asked, but they did not. Again, I think is makes little sense to say the process is broken when the clear failure here is in the candidate asking for what they want and knowing the ranges they can command in the market. I have usually not been in companies that pay much if any above the midpoint, so it does at times amaze me when people lowball themselves. I also use this same process when I look for a job, and in my case I also know I'm a rare bird, because with the MMM focus on my expenses I can make a lot less than I make now, but that gives me the choice to interview for less stressful jobs that of course pay less. I have had many conversations with employers who were confused as to why I would be willing to take a 40%+ paycut, but I was upfront. I'm at the point in my life where I'd be perfectly fine with a lower paying (yet still higher than average) individual contributor role where I can be a rock star because of the experience I bring to the table that their other candidates likely will not have because they have not had the senior level experience I have had. But I also know the market for those roles and the pay I ask for is in the range that I know a good employer would be comfortable with. A senior project manager does not pay as much as a senior executive. I get that's how the world works and I approach it accordingly. In my last job change I had an offer for a PM at a great company and a senior executive role at what seemed like a great company (private so harder to assess without access to financials). If I felt the senior exec role would have been the same corporate BS I wanted to be done with I would have gladly taken the other offer, but the firm needed help I could provide and I love mentoring a staff and so I took that role (where they offered me 6% more than what I asked for by the way, so it can work the other way).
So that has been my experience with my methods on both ends. If you bring unique value to the table (which I assume my current employer saw with the higher offer to make it easier not to consider others), a good manager will not screw with you and will pay what you ask. If you lack the confidence to ask for what you want in salary, how can you blame anyone but yourself? It certainly helps to not be living paycheck to paycheck.
I just think it is just as interesting the concern about this approach. If you did not offer me an number and I made you what you considered a lowball offer, our you still not come back with a counter and ask for something more in line with what you need to take the job anyway? All what I am doing does is get the negotiation out in the open, and really the only way you lose is if you do not have the courage to actually answer my question of "What do I need to pay you to accept the offer?" with the number you want.