Earlier quoted context omitted.
Median? Why not average? Is it because the vast majority of wealth is held by the absurdly rich, and using the median allows you to largerly ignore that?
It doesn't really matter - median household income is $72k while median is $56k. According to pretty much any commonly used definition of inequality, giving more money to >$100k/year software engineers will increase inequality.
You're defining "income inequality" as only in relation to the median or average income. That is too simple to make any sense. By that model, I could have 1000 people making $1/hr, 10 people making $10/hr, and 1 person making $2000/hr. This puts the average at $3/hr. And so you say protecting the $10/hr people's salaries from being artificially suppressed increases income inequality because you've arbitrarily defined the line at the average income.
Also, you're ignoring where the money is coming from, so any math in your mental model is flawed. I would hope this discussion isn't about creating money and giving it to >$100k/year engineers, but rather the business owners with capital paying market rates instead of having a way to suppress skilled labor salaries by exploiting weaker economies and tethering foreign employees for upwards of 9 years before they can finally correct their salary and working conditions (hint: I've worked with a few people who have been exploited like this).
This whole us-vs-them scam of pitting everyone in the middle and lower class against themselves that the media/business/etc. has been doing (probably for longer than I've been alive) is amazingly effective...
Most people want and value many of the same things and greatly outnumber our overlords, but somehow we're always pointing the finger at each other ("you're just lazy", "you're just racist", "a true would/wouldn't ", "check your privilege", etc.). And all the while, the powers that be siphon away money and power and continue to set the stage in their favor.