tzone

As they say: "there are levels to this shit". It is very noticeable in most individual games and sports that as you go to the top the difference between skill level is huge, even between top 5 percentile of people or between top 1 percentile of people. So in a way not only 95 percentile is no good, a lot of times even 99th percentile may not be that good either in grand scheme of things.

If we take two examples of chess and boxing. In boxing there is huge difference between top 5 level fighter in a weight class, compared to top 20 level fighter, and huge difference between top 20 and top 100, and another huge difference between top 100 and regular pro boxers. And there can be 1000s of pro boxers for a weight class. And there is another huge difference between a pro boxer and random guy who trains boxing in a gym, and another huge difference between random guy who trains boxing and just a random Joe from the street.

The level differences are so huge that, if a top 5 fighter is fighting someone from top 20 it is generally considered a one sided beat down and a mismatch, with 10:1 odds for a favourite.

There is very similar situation in chess. A Fide Master can crush people who have studied chess and play as a hobby while just playing blind folded. (Not even talking about average Joe, even I can beat most average people playing blind folded, and I am not any kind of Master). International masters (IM) crush Fide Masters like its nobodies business. At next level, Grand Masters are a level above most IMs. Being a Grand Master is considered a huge accomplishment, not just top 1% but probably top 0.001%. No matter how hard you work and how dedicated you are, unless you are also an exceptional talent, you can't become a GM in chess. However top 10 players will crush below average GMs with ease. That is how crazy the level difference is in this sport.

I think this type of phenomenon is more prevalent in individual sports/games compared to team sports. (Especially larger team sports). I think that is another reason why this phenomenon is not always as visible in "real life" situations, because most of the real work is done in groups and sometimes in very large groups which averages out potential huge differences between individual abilities. In a team/group environment there are faster diminishing returns on how much more a single individual can do as part of a group. Of course there are still big differences but in that case top 95th percentile is probably good enough to get you in the top team, especially if you have other skills to complement your abilities (like better communication, better team work, etc)

This. If international micro payments, with close to zero transaction fees, really were an option, lot more things would have variable pricing or payouts.

This seems kind of backwards to be honest. The crackdown on H1-Bs will definitely have long term negative consequences on US tech economy, not positive consequences. A lot of major progress in tech was possible specifically because it was very easy to get h1-b visas especially for immigrants who came to study in US colleges.

Imo the issue with European immigration system is that it isn't welcoming for permanent immigration. So high skilled people go to Europe, earn some money and then go back home because they are never accepted as equal citizens in most wester European countries (both by law, but even more importantly, by culture).

In US on the other hand, immigrants can settle in much more easily and call it their new home, and become full fledged part of the society both by law and culturally. Especially in areas like SV and New York.

When you look at leadership (i.e. C-titles, VPs, Founders) of a lot of tech companies in SV and New York, first and second generation immigrants are vastly over-represented.

EDIT: also guess what is going to happen if immigration becomes harder? the outsourcing companies will get better and do the job cheaper remotely from India, so even more of the tech work will just get outsourced, meaning there will be even less tech jobs in Europe. You really can't stop the inevitable consequences of the global free market, unless you want to go full protectionist. So acquiring and KEEPING skilled labor through immigration is probably a much smarter long term choice compared to protectionist immigration strategies.