You don't get it. It's more expensive to hire any programmers when the average rate that a programmer gets is inflated by an influx of cash. It's independent of experience. You could substitute talent with "skilled labor" and everything else would stand.

Why does "talent" have to mean "incredible geniuses"?

Lots of companies need programmers who are "pretty good," whatever that means to you.

Or do they? If you look at the big industries of the past, they came with real time constraints. In agriculture, for instance, if the work wasn't completed in time, the food would spoil. While skilled farmhands are more valued, in the absence of them, anyone off the street will be given the job simply because it has to be done one way or another.

What are the consequences to not building on your technology by a certain date? Maybe your competition will beat you to the punch. Maybe the costs that could be saved by implementing the software will continue to be expensed. Beyond that, not a whole lot.

This leads us to a situation where just having anyone on the job is not viable. It is prudent, in many, cases for a business to simply wait until someone who is "top talent" is freed up to do the work. Simply knowing how to program isn't going to be enough.

Put simply, people who can and do build stuff. Notice the emphasis on do. There are lots of smart people out there. Some percentage work at large companies in a relatively stress free job doing lots of things with maybe some building. Some other percentage get by just by being smart.

When talking about talent what all these companies want are the person who is smart, experienced, and can execute. That person who can build something from nothing. That person who actually works.

If you can get 2-3-4-5 of these kinds of people together on the same project amazing things can happen. It's very hard to hire these people because they are usually off building something...for their own startup.