What that really means is that if you're paying $200k now, bumping to $250k isn't going to make your workers more productive. However, if you're paying $200k now and you cut the pay to $180k, and your competitors are offering $230k, your best performers are still going to jump ship.
How do you think of "best"? There are many senses:
(a) People that do well in a particular organizational context?
(b) People with a certain set of skills?
In the software industry, these do change pretty dramatically from time to time. For example, the FAANG style of interviews disrupted what came before. And of course, there is considerable variation between FAANG style hiring and others.
I bring all this up not just to be pedantic... (Is there anything wrong with being pedantic? We should do a proper study to find out, but I digress...) ... because I'm curious if and how the industry is changing.
Many software developers got comfortable with being in the driver's seat and being fawned over. This has changed a lot, it seems to me, in the last 3 to 6 months. Where does this leave us?
Where is the evidence for this?
I get that it seems like what would happen, but where are the cases proving that's what happened? Especially in an economy shedding jobs, there may not be many other places to go.
Also, studies seem to find that money doesn't motivate people to perform at a higher level.
https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv