People value transparency, and it might be that they would prefer a lower salary at a more transparent workplace. In addition, providing wage transparency allows for further transparency in other business areas, such as gross margins, R&D costs, etc. which may be valuable in allowing employees to understand the business better and contribute in more meaningful ways.
You are also only addressing the workers with below-average wages (who may be qualified for higher pay) when you say that secrecy helps employers. Half of all employees have above-median wages, so I would assume that transparency could be used to bargain them down, as the below-median workers were helped in bargaining-up; I am not sure what the net effect would be, and don't know why we should assume it goes one way or the other.
I am not an advocate for wage transparency or opaqueness, because I don't know which way the effects go for anyone. I am also an advocate of deregulation, and abolition of most laws, simply because there are so many that nobody knows what is illegal; this seems to be yet another case of governmental over-reach.
If we focus on Amazon, lack of information is going to be asymmetric, with Amazon as a large employer holding the informational advantage. Amazon can see what the salaries are, what people accept, and what people were making when they left. If people want to try bargaining up because they think they deserve more, Amazon knows better if it can ignore the request and find the same talent for less.
And I don't see how it's relevant to mention how workers have "above median wages" compared to national figures. If anything, wouldn't that imply that Amazon is blindly giving out too much money and ignoring this very public information? That's implying an unlikely level of incompetence, when it's really about variation within the labor market.
You assume that more information asymmetry always helps the employer; it is also possible that a lack of information makes the employee think they're getting a 'bad deal', because they overestimate how much their coworkers make (possibly due to something akin to impostor syndrome). If Amazon thinks they can find someone of equal skill for less money, they should make the change, and if the employee thinks they are worth more than they can get with Amazon, then they should leave; I really don't understand your (second?) point.
I never said the above-median wages had anything to do with national figures; I meant that depending on what the employee and employer were bargaining around (more likely to be company median wages than national), the comparison would help the employees bargain up half the time, and the employers bargain down half the time.
People value transparency, and it might be that they would prefer a lower salary at a more transparent workplace.
I specifically said above, "Where the cost analysis may not be the same for each side.". This obviously includes non-salary benefits (stock, vacation, flex time, home life balance, etc).
You are also only addressing the workers with below-average wages (who may be qualified for higher pay) when you say that secrecy helps employers.
I specifically said above, "The worst case scenario for the employee is to find out they are making significantly more money than their coworkers, in which case they have no further bargaining power.". As an employee, your bargaining power is not reduced if you have knowledge of that you are paid above the median. In other words, from the employees perspective, there is no situation where you are in a worse negotiating position due to having more salary information.
so I would assume that transparency could be used to bargain them down, as the below-median workers were helped in bargaining-up;
Note that when negotiating, the only party that is going to negotiate for lower wage is the employer (since it is generally unlikely that an existing employee is going to ask for a lower wage voluntarily). And from that position, the employer already knows all current salaries. If you are making substantially more than the other people, then the employer can (and likely would) reveal that information in order to help secure a lower raise (or also likely, no raise, and unlikely, a lower wage). That's the power of information asymmetry. The employer can use the information when it benefits them (reducing the size of a raise for an already high compensated employee), but withhold that information when it does not benefit them (when a low compensated employee is up for a raise).
don't know why we should assume it goes one way or the other.
We don't have to assume anything. This is basic economic and negotiating tactics.
I am not an advocate for wage transparency or opaqueness, because I don't know which way the effects go for anyone.
It's perfectly reasonable to have an opinion on wage transparency, but it seems a little odd to say "I don't know which way the effect go for anyone". We have negotiating models and frameworks specifically for this type of activity. And the general rule is, "The more information asymmetry that you have in your favor, the better your bargaining position". Specifically because it allows the party with the additional information to use that information when it benefits them, and withhold that information when it does not benefit them.
You are also only addressing the workers with below-average wages (who may be qualified for higher pay) when you say that secrecy helps employers. Half of all employees have above-median wages, so I would assume that transparency could be used to bargain them down, as the below-median workers were helped in bargaining-up; I am not sure what the net effect would be, and don't know why we should assume it goes one way or the other.
I am not an advocate for wage transparency or opaqueness, because I don't know which way the effects go for anyone. I am also an advocate of deregulation, and abolition of most laws, simply because there are so many that nobody knows what is illegal; this seems to be yet another case of governmental over-reach.