Let's be straightforward about this in asserting ourselves as employees; They already ARE aligned. If you're (my employer) not paying me well compared to competitors, I will absolutely walk, and you will be saddled with finding and training/ramping up a replacement. That is a direct cost to shareholders. It is in their best interest to ensure a reasonable continuity within their workforce both from a work output standpoint and a morale/culture standpoint, as teams I've been on which have had time to establish trust and understanding for each other have been remarkably more effective than those that did not. As such, pay is one of the "easiest to pull" strings to this end.

There is some mental dissonance however, as I imagine this train of thought would be "obvious" to those in power, yet we see regular evidence of wage stagnation/suppression. If we don't assume incompetence, some optimum of balancing pay and churn has been found and accepted, and if I trust that they are making a self interested decision, there may NOT be a benefit to paying more. However, I'd really like to see the numbers, because my following intuition from a long time of watching the best engineers hop from job to job is that I probably wouldn't agree with their choice of calculations.