I think that the point is that they don't pay any much more than people on the top left.
There are people contributing in a real way to the livelihood of everyone else at the company. Some of them are in the bottom right. But, as pointed out here, some of them are in the top left. Without them, the company does not progress as well. Not because of their technical contributions, but on their "soft skill" contributions.
Also, there are people not contributing in a real way to the livelihood of everyone else at the company. Some of them are in the top left. But some of them are in the bottom right. Without them, the company progresses better. Not because they produce bad technical contributions, but because their lack of "soft skill" has a real bad impact.
I think that when you say "they are much more rare" is maybe because you are taking a subgroup of the bottom right: the ones that are beneficial to the company. The thing is: in order to identify a "technically super competent" person, you need 1) a technically super competent person, 2) that this person is not using his technical competence in a way that make look them incompetent because they are producing beautiful code misaligned with what the company wants to do or that breaks the efforts of colleagues.
If the condition number 2 is not satisfied, this person is still part of the bottom right, but you don't notice they are part of the bottom right, because people would not call this person "competent" (because "competent" != "technically competent").
There are people contributing in a real way to the livelihood of everyone else at the company. Some of them are in the bottom right. But, as pointed out here, some of them are in the top left. Without them, the company does not progress as well. Not because of their technical contributions, but on their "soft skill" contributions.
Also, there are people not contributing in a real way to the livelihood of everyone else at the company. Some of them are in the top left. But some of them are in the bottom right. Without them, the company progresses better. Not because they produce bad technical contributions, but because their lack of "soft skill" has a real bad impact.
I think that when you say "they are much more rare" is maybe because you are taking a subgroup of the bottom right: the ones that are beneficial to the company. The thing is: in order to identify a "technically super competent" person, you need 1) a technically super competent person, 2) that this person is not using his technical competence in a way that make look them incompetent because they are producing beautiful code misaligned with what the company wants to do or that breaks the efforts of colleagues. If the condition number 2 is not satisfied, this person is still part of the bottom right, but you don't notice they are part of the bottom right, because people would not call this person "competent" (because "competent" != "technically competent").