They don't have to; it should be a factor of the overall company's revenue. If you take an infamous company like Amazon, they have 1.3 million employees worldwide generating 386 billion in revenue; that's nearly $300K per employee of revenue generated. Surely there's room there to pay people more.
That's still close to $120,000 per employee, so plenty of room to pay people more.
The next step would be to look at the segmented results, to see whether there is a significant difference in net income per employee across the company (It's fine if a high margin operation inside of Amazon ends up supporting a lower margin operation, but you wouldn't want to build economic policy on the assumption that businesses would do that).
Companies rarely exist to give employees more money; their goal is to increase the wealth of their owners.
Good. We should automate away more jobs. More automation means people can work less hours, get more sleep, and pursue things that do not provide direct financial rewards but still enrich society. This is what we should be working towards.
The only problem with that is if the value of that automation only enriches a few people at the top. But that is not an inherent problem. The solution is simple: progressive income and wealth taxes. These can pay for universal basic income and other safety nets that provide for the people whose jobs have been replaced with automation.
And after that what? Continue taxing the highly productive people, while letting those whose jobs were automated away, live the rest of their lives doing nothing?