[lostcolony]

Only if the advertised minimum has to be the actual minimum someone at the company is making, and not a theoretical minimum that the salary band encompasses.

Because if it's a theoretical minimum, I don't care about it; I want to know what the maximum is. If it's an actual minimum, I also don't care about it, but the person earning that might.

[lotsofpulp]

If a company offers $1 as their minimum, then applications will know they are a joke. They will have to keep moving this minimum up and up to be taken more seriously.

If a company offers $50k as a minimum for a role that most people earn $200k for, then they probably will not get many good people responding to it since who would want to work for a company that could lowball you by $150k? And another company can see that and up their minimum to take advantage.

It just helps weed the garbage employers out quickly. Perhaps it will not be as useful in a situation where employers have all the negotiating power where they can list $1, but at least now there is some time saved.

[munk-a]

In theory the minimum and maximum are pretty detached from the actual salary negotiations - since you can bargain up the salary (at least within the range). However, it's like screening resumes by tech keywords - sure that C++ Systems Programmer with 20 years of experience as a senior dev might be able to pick up Java in like a week - but the algorithm didn't see Java anywhere in the resume so into the bin it goes.

This is basically just letting employees do a similar first pass of employers that employers are doing on us - if your salary range is bonkers and your senior dev has a low range of 30k then I'm not working there - I don't care if you offer me 150k, you clearly have something toxic going on with your culture so into the bin you go.