Exactly. I know precisely what I'm worth because I poll the market frequently. I don't need my employer to push mandatory transparency to know what I'm worth; in fact, I feel the informational asymmetry actually benefits me, because my employer doesn't know how much it'd cost to replace me (unless they're interviewing potential replacements as often as I'm speaking with recruiters / getting inbound interest from other companies, which they're probably not, because it's expensive and time consuming) yet I know exactly how much I can fetch elsewhere. So when I negotiate for a salary increase, the employer assumes all the risk in the transaction.
This can only be true in a mom&pop company size. Any company with a decent staff management know a lot more than any employee: they make constant offers that get accepted or reject, and see more candidates than you ever will, even if you are in 100% of the interviews.
The information asymmetry you think benefits you is only protecting you , at best, from getting something worse than other employees. Thats not a success. A transparent system would mean everybody gets the benefits of that.
