The idea that pay raises come from some sort of collective negotiation with a bunch of executives is just bizarre on its own. Executives do not get to decide the pay level of employees.
The point of the tax law was to lower the cost of employment and investment in the US (specifically, the cost of repatriating foreign profits to pay US salaries and buy US-based infrastructure). The hope being that lower costs cause companies to value US labor more, which tightens the labor market.
A tight labor market causes the raises: companies will continue to offer what they want to offer, and they will be unable to replace attrition because the would-be new hire can do better. The employer is either forced to offer more wages directly, lower their standards to poach employees from lower-paying employers, or do without and leave profit on the table.
But none of that involves buttering up CEOs and getting them to pinky-swear that they're going to give out raises just because they can. The wage level is always "as low as they can get away with"
The point of the tax law was to lower the cost of employment and investment in the US (specifically, the cost of repatriating foreign profits to pay US salaries and buy US-based infrastructure). The hope being that lower costs cause companies to value US labor more, which tightens the labor market.
A tight labor market causes the raises: companies will continue to offer what they want to offer, and they will be unable to replace attrition because the would-be new hire can do better. The employer is either forced to offer more wages directly, lower their standards to poach employees from lower-paying employers, or do without and leave profit on the table.
But none of that involves buttering up CEOs and getting them to pinky-swear that they're going to give out raises just because they can. The wage level is always "as low as they can get away with"