Don't dare to speak of burdens of proof, when all you have offered to this point is anecdotal evidence. I am under no obligation to hold myself to a higher standard.
But logic demands that, in the absence of contradictary evidence, that which is available prevails. To say otherwise is purely prejudicial.
You've already lost the argument, but I enjoy sandbagging as much as the next guy. The EE Times 2004 Survey found the average salary for a Ph.D. in engineering to be $119,000; however this includes those in "engineering managment", which is a different career path. Note the salaries for VP of Engineering ($131,000) are in line with what previously posted for senior management. Some of the figures in the survey, however, include cost of benefits in compensation, which tends to inflate them.
The biggest hit in income for Engineers in recent years has been the decline in incentive compensation: stock options and bonuses have both gone the way of Sarbanes-Oxley.
To save your poor tired fingers the effort, here's the relevant hyperlink:
EE Times 2004 Salary and Job Survey
Thus your implication that asking for $120k is "too much" would appear to mistaken.