I don't think that many bosses think like that.
What if the company is not that profitable, can you still stay competitive? Are you willing to risk the future of the company?
You're giving me a choice between risking the company's failure and rooking some of the employees out of pay they could get if they were more self-serving?
I deny the choice. I think most companies that make a habit out of underpaying good people to stay barely in the black don't survive in the long haul. If I were faced with that choice, I'd be honest with everybody about the financials and we'd work something out. Either we're pursing something pretty lucrative, in which case it's a temporary deviation from market rates, or we're barking up the wrong tree, in which case the company isn't worth doing.
It's my job making sure everybody is paid fairly. If Niel came to me and told me about a competitive offer, I'd say, "well, let's look at the market; maybe we've fallen behind." And then we'd sit down and refresh the data that drove our current pay levels. If things had changed significantly, then it would be time for raises. If not, then we'd talk about why a company might be paying well above market, and whether it's the right choice for Niel to go there.
For specialized skills, yeah, a new matrix category's the obvious fix. If co-workers are the kind of people that freak out at market economics, then it means we're not educating them well, so that's something worth fixing.
I think it's important to remember that secret salaries rarely stay secret, so the choice isn't between full knowledge and zero knowledge; it's between full knowledge and half knowledge plus substantial speculation.