Do process poor companies pay their people higher?

The title would seem quiet controversial and academic, so let me clarify my stance. I have empirically noticed that as the maturity of an industry improves, the average compensation falls. While this may be attributed to lower profits, the reason according to me is that as the process maturity goes up, the value added by the individual employee is lower. No wonder then, that organization stress 'process' and 'knowledge capture' and are wary of the lone ranger. Below are the examples I adduce in support of my theory

• Investment banks and consulting firms are very profitable, but explicitly put their people over process, this increasing their dependence on stars. While retail banks/commercial  have refined their processes to such an extent that nobody is indispensable. This in my view is a contributory factor to differential pay.
• New entrants in a market pay supernormal wages to lure established people from their competitors, to set up processes/systems. This is another form of substituting people for process in the short run. 
• IT companies used to be the best paymasters in India till their process maturity attained stellar heights. And then they realized that they could easily find people to fit the process. Hence, expanding the talent poor(Wipro hiring B.Scs, training) became the option to offering huge salaries to poach. 
• Market leaders(HUL, TAS, HDFC etc) are rarely the best paymasters. In fact, they deliberately benchmark themselves at lower than 100 percentile of industry pay, because they feel they are giving valuable training in return.  

This topic seems interesting enough to do a time series analysis-maybe it already has been done before. But the takeaway from this is that before career decisions, take this factor into account as well.