The first part of your response sounds agreeable - I suppose it's not the "more money" aspect as much as the "threat" aspect which shows that for one reason or another the relations between the company and the individual have gone beyond amicable negotiations into ultimatum territory and the employee is not very savvy - 9.9 times out of 10 the company has far much leverage in these sorts of negotiations.

But the rationale sounds a bit weird to me:

"they're not invested anymore."

How could an employee be invested in a company if they've not actually invested? This sounds like an employee should have some sort of weird feudal allegiance for the corporation they work for.