Look at it this way: A and B can be freelancers and gain at most 100K yearly, or they can work for C, where they commonly create wealth for C in amount of 1000K; C pays them 150K each (and keeps the rest, 1000K-150K-150K=700K).
Economically, it would make sense for A and B to work for C, since they gain 50K more. Economically it makes sense for C to hire them since together they create wealth, and the 700K that C gets to keep is a reward for his willingness to risk hiring them and managing them into a productive team etc.
If A and B would like the risk, they could start pairing themselves together and attempt to create wealth independently. But they could fail. 10% chance of a 1000K is still just 100K on average (it just has an interesting distribution of the payout). The difference up to 1000K is a payout to C for the risk they took in growing their business up to the current level of scalability. (otherwise other companies would pay more for the value that A and B provide)
If A and B care only about technology and are risk adverse, the economy doesn't award them more than the 150K which they are already getting. For such people, creating wealth of 1000K for the companies where they work is not a result of their behaviour, but a reward for the founders that took the risks and had the vision to create organizations allowing that.