A perfect tie: 44 % for making salaries public, 44 % against, and 11 % with no opinion. It is one of the rare rounds in the archive where neither camp wins.
Men split exactly in two. Women lean slightly towards refusal and supply most of the hesitation: the deadlock is general, not specific to one group.
Age, however, is far more decisive than the total suggests. The over-65s and the 45-54s are unanimously for transparency, the 55-64s unanimously against, the 25-34s cut in two, and the 18-24s rather hostile. The global result is the product of stacked, clear-cut positions, not of collective hesitation.
The debate reproduces exactly that structure. On the supportive side, the argument is fairness: transparency would reveal gaps between people doing the same job, limit discrimination and build a form of trust.
On the refusal side, the argument is social and cultural: the measure would create needless pressure and toxicity between people, in a country where showing off is not prized. The voice making that point is also the best received in the thread.
The third contribution, undecided, contains both at once: yes to the transparency some professions need, no because people would be judged even more by what they earn. The round is thus split all the way down to its arguments, each camp being right on different ground.