Why would industry experience of IT automatically result in monetary reward? Your argument is straying way way beyond anything to do with the original comment.
Focussing on children versus adults or elderly people versus professional athletes is not a fair comparison.
Just to be clear, are you trying to say females are not good enough to play in the NBA?
Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Because... there is such thing as native talent and it's not just how much one practices. In general, men are stronger and can run faster than women... training being equal. And men are statistically taller than women. So... they have an advantage in a game where height is an advantage.
I don't even know why you would argue that point. It's biological fact.
Growing old or being a child is the same as genetic advantage? No, and I never claimed it was. The point was simply to illustrate the ridiculousness of the claim of humans being homogenous. Very clearly some people have an advantage over others in some activities. These people may require less practice to become "experts" than others... thus the 10,000 hour rule is at once nullified as "rule".
As for training in IT let me re-iterate the point... those with more practice in both tech and business didn't necessarily make more money while young people with less practice did. Presumably money was the goal of more than got it... even those that really really believed and tried very hard.
There is native grace. Believe it. Accept it. Know your strengths. Know your limitations. This is the key to survival and success. No... sorry in spite of what they told you in grade school, you can't be any thing you want to be if you simply put your mind to it and work really hard. That line might motivate some, but at the end of the day it is inherently and obviously untrue.
You are quite simply wrong. Not just your conclusions, but your entire understanding of native talent is incorrect.
It is not surprising you hold the viewpoint you do. If I started off thinking 2 + 2 = 5 then I would argue 4 + 4 = 10.
That is essentially what has happened here. You have misunderstood native talent, how it is defined and measured and are now arguing from a position of factual incorrectness. No point continuing really. It is obvious you will never read anything to change your own mind.