I don't see his comment as doing the bare minimum. More like being in no man's land. If the extra effort and time cannot lead to greater rewards or will go largely unnoticed why do it? Otherwise you're risking resentment and burnout. Some people can increase their output linearly (or better) by putting in more time and some of those people are positioned to benefit from that increased output. The rest (and the company) would probably benefit from a different approach. I often wonder when management theory will start exploring this issue. As something of a workaholic I had to teach myself moderation.

Why not do both? I got to work on things I really cared about and got to keep a high salaried job and all the perks that come with it (I quit on my terms, not theirs, once I had enough to retire).

My employer may not have cared about the things I worked on but that's fair game. After all they hired me and they were happy to have me there for years. I don't see the 'extreme' in what I did, more like common sense or self-optimization.