It makes sense from a simple supply/demand point of view. You only pay what you have to. Why pay the candidate more just because you saved some money elsewhere.

It makes sense from a simple supply/demand point of view. You only pay what you have to. Why pay the candidate more just because you saved some money elsewhere. That could be just added to the bottom line, used for growth etc. Now if the candidate is strong, a good negotiator, and all their competing candidates went through a recruiter then they may be able to claw back some of that as a pay rise. But I guess in most cases, not.