Yes, if the best engineers really have x100 or x1000 productivity, why aren't employers offering higher salaries? There's been high-profile high-tech anti-poac

Yes, if the best engineers really have x100 or x1000 productivity, why aren't employers offering higher salaries? There's been high-profile high-tech anti-poach collusion, and Ed Catmull (pixar) even claimed it's for the best. But without that, there would be implicit collusion anyway. It's obvious to employers that an arms-race to attract talent is not going to benefit anyone (who is an employer). But what would happen if wages did rise to their natural level? First, it would attract people to the profession. Second, the most-profitable companies would end up with the best engineers because only they could afford to outbid everyone else (and resources end up in the hands of those most able to utilize them). Startups, being poor, will find it difficult to attract excellent salaried, non-equity talent ("inequitable"?) Thirdly and sadly, it would also mean less development work would occur (because it costs so much, and employers have limited money). But I have a feeling you'd end up with even more open source projects; and more people working on startups (to fill the gaps).