https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
(Incidentally, the theory was first put forward by Herbert A Simon, who received both a Nobel Prize in Economics and the Turing Award.)
I mean, I kinda get it, but honestly $100k is more than enough for me, let alone $150k.
It would serve them better if they can treat themselves as product and services providers in a free market. Band together and unite! Don't stab each other in the back for meager bones being thrown at you.
I've seen situations where the company got $950K of a $1.2 million contract simply for negotiating the contract with the client, while the dev who did 6 months of work got the other $250K. $250K for 6 months work is a lot, but $950K for 2 weeks work + occasional maintenance of the business relationship is a lot more.
Of course, I've also seen the flipside: I worked at a company where the CEO was salaried less than me and his share in the company wasn't likely to grow in value such that his compensation vastly outstripped mine. I've been paid more at other places, but nobody complained about compensation there.
And if your work contributes millions of dollars to the company's bottom line, what justice is there in the company giving 99.9% of the surplus of the surplus you generate to upper management's bonus, or the fund that gets inside info on your next quarterly report?
There are ways to spread that money equitably. It's a classist, self defeating belief that a programmer should let her superiors take home the profits of her work.
Immediately, you start to think about costs, hurdles, and PITA to doing that. Those costs and hurdles represent the value that someone else is adding to allow you to "just code".
Same with CEO salaries, movie star salaries, professional athlete salaries, and VC profits. $100k is more than enough.