This was... utterly predictable? Companies have incredibly strong incentives to maintain this information asymmetry, and it's a fool's endeavor to think we can legislate it away. I suspect the next chapter in this, if we try to further clamp down on this from a regulatory standpoint, is that you'll see more and more creativity in terms of what defines compensation, or perhaps even clever re-engineering of titles.
Who's to say the bottom is the actual bottom though? Suppose I pay all my engineer's 170, 170, 190, and 210. What prevents me from listing the salary range at 100-210?
And this is exactly what Netflix is doing, because they don’t pay any of their senior engineers (these listings were for senior positions) only $90K. I’d be surprised if any (in the U.S. at least, and this is a U.S. job posting) make under $200K.
You're right, though the article is talking about pay transparency laws in several different US states, so perhaps some have this loophole and others don't.
That can depend on company size and the number of positions. Many "anonymous" data points aren't really that anonymous at smaller companies or with a smaller number of specific roles.
That is true. Many kinds of reporting requirements are only triggered for companies larger than a certain size, so perhaps that would be beneficial here as well to maintain anonymity.
That covers half of it. Even in a fairly large company you can still have niche roles that could allow someone to de-anonymize the data. The group size wouldn't be 10k employees, just the 5 people you have in, for example, your legal department.
