There is a cost-benefit proposition to every hire. Unfortunately, the issue there is that the majority of data scientists don't generate $1 mil of value (excep

There is a cost-benefit proposition to every hire. Unfortunately, the issue there is that the majority of data scientists don't generate $1 mil of value (exceptions exist of course), and so it's difficult to justify that level of compensation to management, which means the position may never get created in the first place. Absent an existential threat to their bottom lines, companies will just muddle on without hiring. This may be different in high growth companies, but in most traditional companies that aren't sloshing around in VC cash, to increase headcount you need to provide a value justification vis-a-vis salary (unless it's for cost center positions, but even then..) There's also an underlying assumption that talent flocks to the highest bidder.... but most HR folks will tell you that it's more complex than that. There are many quality of life issues that come into play, like weather, peer-group, spousal happiness, etc. Money doesn't buy everything, and humans aren't optimizers but satificers. I'm a sample of one, but for me, I would absolutely not move to Podunk, IA for a $1mil salary. I'm happy taking a lower salary living in a city and intellectual milieu that feeds me. The kind of person who would take the $1mil may likely not be the kind of talent you want.