I think that it does. If you’re looking for a 120k a year job you know that you won’t have to apply.

It's actually not hard at all, it's only a problem for companies if they fail to keep it secret. Norway has had their tax records public for ages https://www.weforum.org/stories/economic-growth/norway-can-s... and their society and economy seems fine, except they it's extremely easy for new grade to know what they can ask for.

The "complications" are basically employer and manager propaganda because the information asymmetry suits them better than people realising they are undervalued and leaving

Salaries being a public record does come with some downsides for employees.

For the low-paid, it can make it even harder to get credit, or a place to rent, and it can be used for other kinds of discrimination. For the highly-paid, service providers and sales people can use the information to increase the prices you pay and make negotiation harder.

More transparency in a society is for the better. This shouldn't stop at salaries. Why aren't service providers required to disclose what they charge others? Why aren't dentists, lawyers, surgeons etc... required to report their stats? All of those would break information asymmetry and make for better decisions all around and less scams.

Even better, grocery stores might make various discounts and promotions eligible based on whether you belong to a certain bottom percentile of income. That’s the holy grail of price discrimination („milk them for all they have”), which is now attempted to achieve only through imperfect means such as premium brands, up-sells etc.

your bank already knows your salary, and if they don't they are going to ask for it as a condition to give you credit. in some countries landlords ask for proof of income too. the less regulated these areas, the more likely that is going to happen.

In Scandinavia you need to provide salary information to get any kind of credit anyway.

Credit isn’t a problem - your salary is already known as you provide bank statements etc. in the uk there are maximum rent:salary ratios for example.

Parasitical private equity firms maximising their prices is a reasonable worry.

Ranges are still somewhat useful. If they low-ball the upper bound, anyone expecting close or above the upper bound is unlikely to apply, so there is incentive to be honest about that end. But as an applicant (or current employee), knowing the upper bound the company is willing to pay for this position is useful information for salary negotiations (and to enable you to spend your limited time and resources in applying to well-paid jobs)

Obviously it's not perfect. But as you say, it's a difficult problem. And salary ranges are at least something

In my experience, they will offer a bit above the advertised minimum of the range. So if I wasn't happy with £60,000, I wouldn't consider that job, and I definitely wouldn't apply on the basis that maybe they'll offer £90,000.

That's fine though - As long as they're publishing the actual range that they like realistically pay someone, there's literally nothing wrong with that.

Of course it helps. Often if a company is not advertising their salary it's because they're either trying to lowball you or the current staff