When I think about this perspective, another way to state it is that maybe the work being done doesn't actually need the costly person?
Back to the car analogy, if your requirements are to drive 5-10 miles per day do you need a luxury car with GPS, sound system, leather, headlight wipers, etc.? Or can you use a beat up car that might be a lemon that mostly works? And when the beat up car has problems you get another one. This seems to be the approach larger companies (emp_count > 5000) take since they want to commoditize the work and make the employees completely replaceable.
"when he can pay $150k for that guy, and he can't really tell the difference between them?"
Your tech lead should be able to tell the difference and see the actual value in programmers and explain that to the money people. That is why this lemon theory entirely requires a bad hiring structure.
The market for developers is a lemon's market.
That means, if you have 100 good cars selling at $2000, and 100 lemon cars selling at $1000, all the lemons will sell first, because the people making purchasing decisions aren't expert enough to tell the difference.
So it is very rare to be paid based on value, because why would a [CEO|CTO|hiring manager|whatever] pay $1M for this guy, when he can pay $150k for that guy, and he can't really tell the difference between them?
Just an idea, I haven't seen this discussed anywhere, what do you guys think?