I have always contented that salary is hidden, because the exposure of someone’s salary shows the dispairty that occurs in salaries of individuals performing the same job or between varies groups (for example line staff and management, management and corporation officers, staff salary differences between divisions or states).

If you don’t want the exposure, turn down the job.

I, too, am a Solovian (Dan should be pleased his name is getting adjectivized!), as in this post. I think a key point is that you have to consider the real-world — not just the theoretical — advantages of the contemplated disclosure. In your example, we know the maximum amount a staff member is permitted to earn: they can’t earn more than the members of Congress themselves, which is $165,200. That’s a decent sum of money, but hardly enough (especially in an expensive city like DC) for staffers to live so visibly “high on the hog” that Lois Lane is going to start investigating whether they are on the take. In other words, the general data we already have will be sufficient to allow for your example without requiring specific individual data on which congressional receptionists make $20K and which ones make $30K.

Unfortunately, the only people immune from scrutiny will be the independently wealthy.