Another way to interpret this is to look at the relationship between power/influence and relative benefit of transparency. If the highest performers are incenti

Another way to interpret this is to look at the relationship between power/influence and relative benefit of transparency. If the highest performers are incentivized to keep their pay secret to avoid getting placed into common denominator buckets, surely that will translate into systems that favor pay secrecy. So if we look at pay secrecy as a "natural" phenomenon given workplace dynamics, one then needs to ask what one stands to gain from disturbing those dynamics. Anecdotally, the argument I hear is that this causes high performers to leave, causing the company to lose competitiveness. If so, it seems kinda counterproductive to pursue the goal of pay equality, since this entails that there's no incentive to increase company competitiveness (e.g. "eh, someone else can do the work, it's not my job" mentality), but the subsequent lower bottom line gets distributed evenly, meaning that any individual gains are constrained to some local maximum. That... doesn't sound like an appealing conclusion. I'd love to hear different takes on why pay transparency might make sense, in a global environment where other companies are naturally incentivized to tie hustling to pay secrecy.