I think this is basically wrong. One thing lots of companies do during a recession is they try to get rid of the worst 10% of their employees. Instead they lose the top 8% and the bottom 1% and a random 1%- the top 8% see the bad news, have options and leave, the bottom 1% are obviously bad and get let go, and the other 1% are just unlucky becuase the company doesn't really have a clue who is good.
This the same thing for trying to corner the smartest engineers in the market. You're not going to corner the smartest engineers, the smartest are going to go off and work on interesting meaningful projects. But what you will get is a lot of employees who are smart, not that effective but very happy for you to pay them not to work anywhere else.
So even if the intention is to corner the top talent, they're not going to succeed because that's not what motivates most decent engineers. But also, the pool of talent is so vast that they'd bankrupt the company with that pay roll. Oh and the non-compete situation in California means even if you do manage to hire someone, if they do have a good idea they're just going to quit and build it - safe with a nest egg you helped them build.
This the same thing for trying to corner the smartest engineers in the market. You're not going to corner the smartest engineers, the smartest are going to go off and work on interesting meaningful projects. But what you will get is a lot of employees who are smart, not that effective but very happy for you to pay them not to work anywhere else.
So even if the intention is to corner the top talent, they're not going to succeed because that's not what motivates most decent engineers. But also, the pool of talent is so vast that they'd bankrupt the company with that pay roll. Oh and the non-compete situation in California means even if you do manage to hire someone, if they do have a good idea they're just going to quit and build it - safe with a nest egg you helped them build.