Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the type of work, surely. If it's menial tasks and labor is plenty, you can afford your workforce continuously burning out, since it's fast to train and easy to replace. It's exploitative, but as long as it makes the market happy... For highly-educated jobs where people need 6 months of onboarding and institutional knowledge matters, it's probably more efficient to reduce churn.
> it's probably more efficient to reduce churn That would be lovely. Unfortunately, many places would rather you move job than give you a raise. It's cheaper in their accounts, and that's what (ah) counts.
This is consistent with many studies showing that above a certain level of revenues, money matters less and less, while free time matters more and more.
Since training is expensive, what companies are looking for are people that are willing to work more so that those costs are divided amongst more working hours. And they notice that paying more does not translate in people working more, for the reasons outlined above. A equilibrium is reached when people work the amount that they need to reach a certain comfort level then switch to looking for more free time.