talent is relative. So it all depends on your perspective.
Makes me think of economics, where a country might have an absolute advantage (meaning its the best at something it does). But what they have is generally a relative advantage.
Here's an example, a consultant has a personnal assistant. The consultant being very orderly and yadi yada could do the assistant's job better than the assistant, but by paying the assistant to do that job, it allows the consultant to create more wealth doing the consulting.
Therefore, the assistant only brings a relative advantage, yet its still worth it.
So if you take some uber gifted individuals as your norm for what talent is, then most people will just be dull and talentless. Or have talents that some more gifted people could best quite easily relatively speaking.
But once again , we can't just, have only the 'best of the best' do the works requiring whatever u might call talent and put the others in the nearest lumber mine.
There's also the law of numbers. Contrarely to what people believe, the time of the 'lone genius' is pretty much over. Nowadays, in most fields, you scores of teams working on the same projects all around the world. So its more about 'the statistical chance that team X will be better/find some better idea' than pure talent.
The system is just not closed enough anymore.
The whole talent thing would only really make sense with very limited populations (like a village with a better lumberjack, say amarg).
There's also the behavioral approach, positive reinforcement: We learn by repeating, but the ressource we call time, and also our physical limitation [which are really the same thing](we're not travelling at C) will limit our possibilities. And as I said about relative and absolute economical advantages, it's just not worth it to ask for a guy who could make more money consulting in new york to go to hong kong instead and be paid the same amount, or for the boss to do a secretary's work when he could be signing some fancy contract.
Talent is just a non issue, a mere statistical glitch in the grand scale of things. Its all investment vs result in RELATIVE terms considering physical limitations and the fact that we're in a mass economy, which simply wouldn't work if we only used something we define as best in an aristocratical way. It'd also impair innovation because of a lesser open endedness and smaller scales, which is after all what 'talent' is supposed to bring to the world. Killing its own purpose.
Relatively speaking, worst answer to the OP so far in this thread. In my opinion.