It's not even close to an even playing field. Companies have vastly more information than the average job applicant.
So if you are overqualified and confident in yourself, apply and negotiate.
> because companies advertising a job with high salary will have to wait longer
I think you have this backwards
> now they're able to openly collude
That's not a very stable equilibrium. I think they would instead openly compete
I don't actually think lawmakers are stupid enough to not realize this; it's just that they are not playing the "helping people" game: they are playing the reelection one.
Effectively equivalent to x = x + 1
Colorado: 5,773,714 people, GDP of $318.6 billion.
I mean, yeah, sure, they can do that, but it's dumb and their competitors will profit from that.
Companies will:
1) Advertise lower salaries than you're able to otherwise negotiate (if you're a high performer) because they have to advertise this to everyone. People who could've earned more will lose some potential earning due to this measure, or they will not apply to suitable jobs for them that might have paid more on negotiation, and/or
2) Jobs will go unfilled for longer, and people who could've been hired for less will go unemployed or unhired for longer, because companies advertising a job with high salary will have to wait longer until the right person comes along for exactly that salary.
On the other hand, I could also see this becoming to the companies' advantage, as now they're able to openly collude and set standard (lower) wages for certain jobs, that no applicant will be able to negotiate above.
All to say, this is not the slam-dunk policy that you (or those policymakers) think. Lots of unintended consequences that I don't think that they even know yet.
---
And I'm being downvoted for, what, stating reasonable opinions that don't make people feel good?