> This assumes that salary is all that motivates people. First of all, much of my argument is about the effects of one company paying more for the same work th

> This assumes that salary is all that motivates people. First of all, much of my argument is about the effects of one company paying more for the same work than its competitors. The company in my example pays its engineers better. So there's no assumption that these engineers would rather become janitors if it paid the same. There's a much more reasonable assumption that given equivalent work, they'd rather be paid more for it. As for people flocking to professions with the best pay prospects: that is not only logical, but has been proven many times over, including in our specific profession. I can link you some curves if you haven't seen them already. Of course, there will always be exceptions. But even then, it's not a reliable way to recruit thousands of hard-working employees. If engineering paid exactly the same as being a janitor, some of the most brilliant candidates will take a part-time job as a night guards, and spend all their time reading calculus books or playing chess. P.S. even brilliant people won't willingly go into $200k in debt to attend an elite school for engineering just to be saddled with that debt for the rest of their lives. They'll become night guards and spend their time reading physics textbook for fun. P.P.S. anecdotal evidence: some of the most brilliant people I know studied physics or pure math in top schools, then switched to tech because it pays.