I truly beg to differ.
How good you are depends on your results.
If you are a salesman, how much sales you obtained last 12 months?
If you are an engineer, how many projects you have completed last 12 months?
If you are an airline pilot, how many total hours you have?
If you are a teacher, how many of your students have gone from F's to A's?
If you are a school headmaster, what's the position of your school in the state?
If you are an athlete, how many gold medals you have?
If you are a tax accountant, how much taxes have you saved for your customer?
If you are a programmer, how many programs have you written without errors/bugs?
If you are a surgeon, how many successful operations have you performed?
If you are a footballer, how many goals have you scored?
If you are a defence lawyer, how many of your defendants avoided jail/fine for the offences they commit?
If you are a prosecutor, how many offenders have you sent to jail/fined?
If you are a soldier, how many enemy soldiers have you sent and died for their country?
If you are a fighter pilot, how many aircraft have you bought down?
If you are a mechanic, how fast can you overhaul the engine?
I can go on ad infinitum.
For any employer, an employee is paid as per his results, not for his looks, number of wives/children/car to support, education, knowledge and certainly not for his skill.
In this case, employer should ask for proof of previous projects and proof of the project achievements.
Salary is a poor judgement of a person's competence. You could be the prime minister and be the world's biggest thief.
Lots of people who do good jobs and are very competent at what they do aren't paid as much as they are worth.
They will not be compensated fairly once again if they let their salary be used by the HR to low ball them again.