> That’s basic economics.
Oh really. Because to me it sounds like a statement about human motivation patterns, and some huge assumptions about it that are, quite often, wrong. Just like cats, humans can be motivated by:
* food (or food-equivalents in the form of flipping some bits in a bank)
* social interaction (60% of cats as long as not starved!)
...also, unlike cats (AFAIK), but very frequently (also AFAIK) humans can be motivated by:
* self-expression
* perceived benefit to society.
If not for the need for self-expression, there would be barely anyone working in the games industry. And pretty much every company's internal relations spew more-or-less thinly veiled nonsense about how spying on customers is good - or at least acceptable - actually. That's because the last part is an _enormous_ part of motivation for many.
> Claiming that the top performers will continue to innovate and lead when they are compensated the same as the bare minimum clock punchers is extraordinary and requires evidence.
...except non-unionised companies often tolerate bare minimum clock punchers, and, conversely, unions often penalise those. Good relationship with management can easily allow slacking, and unions have more interest in company's survival than some nomadic C-level.
You're making things up and then demanding others to provide evidence. Some of us actually worked in an office for more than a day, you know.