A job advertisement may explain the responsibilities, required experience, workplace culture, and benefits in considerable detail—then describe the salary simply as “competitive.”
Whether employers should publish salaries in job advertisements has become an important workplace question. Applicants argue that compensation is a basic part of any employment decision and should be disclosed before they invest time in an application. Some employers respond that pay depends on experience, location, performance, or the final shape of the role.
Should salary disclosure be mandatory, encouraged, or left to each employer? Consider how the policy could affect applicants, employees, and businesses, then cast your vote.
Hidden Pay Can Make a Job Search More Expensive
Applying for a professional position can involve several hours of work. Candidates may tailor a résumé, write a cover letter, complete assessments, arrange childcare, take time away from their current job, or attend multiple interviews.
Discovering late in the process that the salary is too low wastes time on both sides.
A visible salary range lets applicants make an earlier decision. Someone may accept lower pay in return for remote work, training, flexible hours, a shorter commute, or a strong pension. However, candidates cannot assess those trade-offs properly when the largest part of the compensation package remains unknown.
Disclosure may also improve access to opportunities. People with strong professional networks can sometimes learn what a role pays through colleagues or recruiters. Applicants without those connections must negotiate with less information.
Salary secrecy does not always benefit employers, either. A company may receive more applications by hiding a disappointing salary, but many unsuitable candidates will withdraw once the amount is revealed.
Pay-Transparency Rules Are Already Changing Recruitment
The legal position differs considerably by location.
New York City has required employers to include a good-faith minimum and maximum pay range in covered job advertisements since November 2022. The rule applies to advertised jobs, promotions, and transfers that fall within the law’s scope. The New York City Commission on Human Rights explains its salary-transparency requirements.
California requires employers with at least 15 employees to place the pay scale in job postings for positions that may be filled in the state, including certain remote roles. The required scale is the salary or hourly range the employer reasonably expects to pay. Bonuses and benefits do not have to be included in the statutory range. The California Labor Commissioner provides detailed guidance on the Equal Pay Act.
The United Kingdom does not currently have an equivalent universal requirement. However, in July 2026 the UK government opened a consultation proposing that employers publish pay information in job advertisements—or provide it in writing before an interview when no advert exists. The exact information and acceptable width of ranges would be determined later. The proposal is explained in the government’s consultation on equal pay and pay discrimination.
These examples show that salary disclosure is no longer merely an optional recruitment preference. It is becoming a workplace-policy issue, although the rules remain inconsistent.
What the Evidence Suggests—and What It Cannot Prove
A 2025 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper examined recent US state laws requiring pay information in job postings. The researchers estimated that the policies increased the share of advertisements containing salary information by 30 percentage points. They also found wage increases of approximately 1.3% to 3.6%, without measurable reductions in employment or job postings across the datasets they studied.
Those findings suggest that disclosure may increase competition between employers. However, the paper is a working paper rather than a final statement on every possible labor market, and results from particular US laws may not transfer directly to other countries. The methodology and findings are available in the NBER study of pay transparency in job postings.
The OECD has also warned that evidence specifically concerning salary disclosure in advertisements remains geographically limited. Its review notes that rules differ over whether an eventual offer may fall outside the advertised range. That distinction matters because a published figure provides little protection if it does not meaningfully constrain the final offer. See the OECD’s report on pay-transparency policies and their current limitations.
Transparency can improve information without automatically producing equal pay. Differences in responsibilities, performance, experience, negotiation, working hours, and progression can remain even when starting ranges are public.
A Published Range Can Still Be Misleading
Not every salary range is equally useful.
An advertisement offering between $50,000 and $150,000 technically discloses pay, but it gives applicants little idea of the likely starting offer. Similarly, a UK listing that says “up to £60,000” may not explain whether most successful candidates begin near that amount or far below it.
A useful disclosure should ideally explain:
- The realistic minimum and maximum starting pay
- Whether the figure is hourly, annual, full-time, or pro rata
- Whether location changes the range
- How experience affects the offer
- Whether commission or bonuses form a major part of earnings
- Whether the range covers only starting pay or future progression
Employers have reasonable concerns. A newly created position may change after interviews reveal what skills are available. A company may consider candidates at several levels. Commission-based roles can produce genuinely variable earnings, and international remote positions may use different regional pay bands.
These complications support carefully designed exceptions and clearer explanations. They do not necessarily justify withholding all compensation information until the final interview.
Transparency Also Affects Existing Employees
Publishing a range does more than inform applicants. Current employees can compare the advertised amount with their own salary.
That comparison may reveal that a company must offer more to attract new workers than it historically paid existing staff. Employers may then face difficult questions about internal pay differences, retention, and promotion.
From an employee’s perspective, that is part of the value of transparency. From an employer’s perspective, it can require a broader compensation review rather than a simple change to recruitment advertisements.
Companies may also worry that competitors will see their pay structures. Yet applicants must still decide whether a role is financially viable. The practical question is whether an employer’s preference for confidentiality should outweigh a candidate’s need for basic information.
What Do You Think?
What information should a useful pay disclosure contain beyond the headline salary, and how wide should employers be allowed to make the advertised range?
Listing salaries can save applicants time, improve their negotiating information, and encourage employers to examine inconsistent pay. Poorly designed rules can still produce vague ranges or fail to explain bonuses, regional differences, and progression. If you have not voted, choose the position that best reflects your view, then explain respectfully how employers and applicants should share responsibility for an informed hiring process.
