One of the largest employers in this space is the Federal Government.
Opinion, observation, and NOT academically researched for publication (Please correct me):
Contractors often are paid more in salary than their Federal Supervisors. There is a natural limit of the 170s to 180s for these positions as direct labor as a contractor. There are very few instances where there is a confluence of labor quality and contracting terms / clauses where this type of salary would be permitted. My experience seems to me to be that these rates are more common due to contracting clauses rather than specifically due to labor quality.
There is a cadre of well qualified, motivated federal employees who "get it" and work hard at protecting our national infrastructure (in many ways, not just cyber). They do this a rates well below those suggested in jmmccumber's posit. These rates are published. To get above 130 they are moved to management and are rarely directly involved in a hands on manner.
IMHO there is a significant (I might argue a infrastructure threatening) shortage of qualified "protectors". There are lots of reasons for this, not the least of which is "publication of code is more important than security", "we can fix it in version 2,3,4,5,6,7,8.04 . . . . . ". Is it interesting to you, as it is interesting to me, that the list of "Top 10" (OWASP) vulnerabilities has the top 2 as the SAME for at Least 4 years running? {OWASP_Top_10-2017_(en).pdf.pdf} (the double pdf is correct).
Let's stop looking at the "black swan" salaries (those who lose their job at the first recognized breach of the infrastrucutre they are responsible for -- the word recognized is important here because of the significant number of unrecognized breaches still ongoing). Let's recognize that it is easy and realistic to make 110K - 120K (top 16% of salaries nationwide) with 2-3 years of experience in a challenging, interesting, lifelong learning (or you don't "get it"), nationally important, leading edge of "work anywhere you want" profession.
