What is fair about anchoring candidates to an average wage set by otherwise competitive buyers who are now using 'transparency' to signal to each other, let alo

What is fair about anchoring candidates to an average wage set by otherwise competitive buyers who are now using 'transparency' to signal to each other, let alone +10%? That's collusion against employees. If I can get the same talent for less, I will buy that. However, if that talent costs less because their government has imposed market conditions that remove the persons opportunity to earn closer to what I would pay them based on the value of their work to me, then I am exploiting an arbitrage of talent in that closed and manipulated market vs. adjacent ones. It must be nice to read this thread and be confident that not only will people in tech still work for less than they are worth, but they will even assert the obligation of others to do so. Facebook employees have an average revenue per employee well above a million dollars, is a web developer working for them only worth the $10/h that other employers are have agreed to offer them because they are from a poor area that enforces these policies, or does this developer earn an equity portion of the millions in value they are creating? Even if it were $100/h, that only seems attractive because most people don't understand contracts, negotiations, numbers, or economics. If you want to know who wins, it's political parties who sell out their populations to global companies by using manipulations like this to suppress the value of their local labour market, and when they attract more foreign companies exploiting this, they get the revenue to spend on getting re-elected by the smaller coalitions they are paying off with the proceeds. Maybe this would have been less controversial if they had marketed it as, "Your bargaining power will be sold out to global corporations and you will be happy."