I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. 1. The difference here is that previously (currently), you still decline the job if you know the market, or you a

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. 1. The difference here is that previously (currently), you still decline the job if you know the market, or you accept a low offer because you don’t know the market well. So the difference with the new approach is better: at least you know to decline or negotiate. 2. This isn’t really different from the status quo. Companies can have internal bands of where they expect comp to be for different positions, and then they stay within it when giving raises. Either they do that, which is the same as before, or they give great raises, which they also would have already been doing. Not sure how the law changes how raises work in the cases where you negotiate a higher salary up front. In either case, it’s always better to get paid more up front and then find a new gig if you aren’t getting raises as expected. 3. The status quo is already this, but no one knows. Clearly a great applicant will have a lot of room to negotiate upwards. If you know up front the job won’t meet your requirements, you’ll pass. And if you weren’t expecting a lot but see the big range, you’ll think, “ok, how do I get that?” So I don’t really understand why any of that is bad. Doesn’t seem like any of the things you suggested suppress wages.