I think this theory may be true in some fields like hedge funds or heavy sales performance based businesses.
In software, I am not sure high productivity people care about this issue, as long as their compensation is high enough.
That circles back to the original problem of how do you identify the high productivity people to give them high compensation. It works when the person spending the money is close enough to evaluate employee performance. But when it's some middle manager spending Zuckerburg's money you run into the agent/principle problem. The managers will do what's best for them (raises for everyone!) and not the enterprise.
So high productivity people who don't want everyone else to benefit are a bit of an oxymoron.
(* or at least most others)
If you can find a dev who can do for your company what LeBron can do for the Cavs/Heat/Lakers, great!
The reality is that you should be shooting for Shane Battier.
at my company, raises have more to do with the financial situation of the company than subjective reviews (although we do have these, they just don't factor into compensation that much). if the company is doing well, everyone gets a nice raise. everyone gets the same percentage bonus every year which is calculated based on the entire company's performance. maybe this makes us unattractive for very competitive people, but it leads to a very cooperative environment. senior devs don't really have anything to lose by spending a few hours helping newer people, so they just do it.