The point is that the "ownership" used to rhetorically justify the labor of such engineers is not "ownership" at all: it's missing the literal most important aspect, that is the ability to profit proportionally as a project brings in revenue. Literally everything else is included -- the intensity of work, the singular focus, the care and devotion, the expected level of initiative -- but not the part that would most benefit the engineer.

It's just rhetorical trickery.