Considering this is a man who's built one of the world's most successful computer software and hardware companies, I think it's safe to say he knows whereof he speaks. And we can put this question to rest.
And I think the exact number or ratio is not important, and probably not measureable. But I bet anyone who's been around long enough, exposed to wide enough variety of programmers, will agree that there is a wide range of skill & talent. But of course when it comes to pay, salary-wise, working for somebody else, there really isn't. And that's a shame. Or at least an inefficiency.
I admire and respect Steve Jobs as a businessman. I don't admire and respect him as an engineer, and certainly don't admire and respect him as a scientist. The differences are subtle and staggering all at once.
I disagree that the question can be put to rest. Your logic follows from a fallacy known as 'Argument from Authority' or 'argumentum ad verecundiam'.
I understand that the comments on this board are derived from a wide variety of individuals, where there is a wide range of skill and talent. I completely agree with your 2nd paragraph.
Don't think in terms of "the rules of debate". Think in terms of evidence, experience and analysis. What I'm saying, and I think the place that Steve Jobs was speaking from, and I think others are speaking from, is from actual direct experience with lots of folks in the real world. Forget proper "data". Forget authority, personally. What I was saying was, look, for the folks that do need an appeal to authority (because they have no experience themselves, or can't do the analysis themselves) the Jobs quote should be money for them. And it doesn't matter whether Jobs was an engineer or not. He worked closely with and led, and hired/fired hundreds of engineers over the years, starting with the Woz himself, and so he's seen firsthand the variety out there in terms of talent, knowledge, skill, attitude, work ethic, etc. It's irrelevant whether he's an engineer or scientist. By being an entrepreneurial business guy in the computer field over the course of 30+ years, at the helm of a company that "kicked ass and took names" in at least two distinct periods under his watch, there's a reasonable case to be made that he knows whereof he speaks. Could he be wrong? Could he be stupid? That's not the smart way to bet.
Also, related: one doesn't need to cite data or academic papers or construct airtight debate-worthy logical arguments to reach conclusions like, gosh, pizza comes in a wide variety of topping mixes, flavors and quality levels. Just experience a bunch of different pizza over the years! Done. :)
And I think the exact number or ratio is not important, and probably not measureable. But I bet anyone who's been around long enough, exposed to wide enough variety of programmers, will agree that there is a wide range of skill & talent. But of course when it comes to pay, salary-wise, working for somebody else, there really isn't. And that's a shame. Or at least an inefficiency.