> Better in some vague notion of engineering goodness? Eh probably not. On average we're all about average. This doesn't make sense. You're picking people from

> Better in some vague notion of engineering goodness? Eh probably not. On average we're all about average. This doesn't make sense. You're picking people from the top end of the income distribution, assuming they are average and using this as evidence that people from the top end of the income distribution are average. It might even be true but the reasoning doesn't follow. It's more likely that it isn't true and there is a difference in skill but that difference isn't proportional to compensation e.g those people are 15% better than average but get paid 100% more.