My logic was definitely relying on the premise that how much someone is worth to a company isn't or at least shouldn't be unrelated salary.

As other other people have already said, it may be the case that this was actually the boss's value to the company (given its low profits and eventual bankruptcy). This would make it a lot better, but it's not how the motive comes across in the article.

But why? The salary should certainly be lower than what someone is worth for the company but I can’t think of any reason why it could be too low if the employee has no problem with it.