Okay we've gone off track here. I just find your "equation" makes no sense.
Firstly, the types of your variables don't match. Risk and $/year can't be added together. And adding per employee variables to a per company variable (risk) is yet another typing/dimension issue.
Secondly, adding "opportunity cost" is meaningless. Adding a dependency on the next best employment choice makes no sense. Also an opportunity cost only exists in a non-equilibrium market - I can't see why you argue for equilibrium while having opportunity cost. Why would an employer care what the opportunity cost was - and you can't argue that it is an equilibrium due to employees demand - because there isn't an equilibrium (see your previous wage example).
Finally, if there is a marginal change in revenue, your equation says that is reflected in employee wages. Imagine a low-risk company where profits are fairly static (say close to risk-free rate of return). If revenues go up, your assumption is that employees are perfectly fungible between businesses and that employees will demand higher wages to capture the revenues (assuming transaction costs are zero so no spread). But employees don't know their value, so there is a distribution of bids. If employees are perfectly fungible then a business will buy the employee that underbids, and the business will make an "excess" profit.
> No evidence presented for that.
That's a diversion. Anecdotally I've experienced it many times as an employee and as a business owner.
The real world has too many counter-examples of disequilibrium - and you are trying to make micro-economic arguments that depend on perfect market equilibrium.