The problem is their fee is also that much. So it doesn't benefit you to get 6% higher price if you have to pay it to agents. It's just more tax and fees you have to pay on a higher house price.

That's not true, the agent fees come from the seller's money.

It's only true if you consider your employer to be paying for everything you have in your house, because they gave you the money you used to pay for your stuff.

If you, personally, change your voting patterns, do you expect society to change?

It prevents companies from wasting peoples' time going through a whole interview loop, claiming a job is 200k-400k and then offering 200k-250k regardless. If the 200k isn't attractive to job seekers, they have to raise the floor.

I wonder if a future law could include a clause that the salary range must be smaller than the minimum salary. Like you can't have a 250k swing with a 150k minimum salary.

This one makes sense, providing local British context. I think it is helpful here.

But usually it seems like they are used to claim superiority. "As a <identity politics tribe member>, this is why my perspective is more important than yours and you are wrong."