There are a couple of factors:
- The type of personality that does well on social web sites (let's be bluntly rude and generalise that as the "pontificating, likes to hear self talk, theoretically-obsessed, anorak type") is by absolutely no means necessarily the type of personality who does well leading and/or working with a group of human beings (let's be bluntly rude and generalise that as the "smooching, glad-handling, compromising, deal-maker type").
As a broad rule, businesses are looking for the latter, not the former.
This is both very sad (I mean sad for us pontificators) and very true.
An interesting point: think of your actual BOSS, the person who has to handle all your problems all day, make you feel at least OK about yourself, balance everyone's renumeration, try to keep enough money coming in to your department so that all of you can feed your children while you fondle memory algorithms, deal with the chumps upstairs in management so you don't have to, and so on. Would you really give a flying crap if that poor person has any connection, whatsoever, to some chat website? Of course the answer is no, you just want your boss to be good at to pulling off all that juggling.
- Talk about "superstars" (let's be bluntly rude again) is a little star-struck. You're a superstar if you're so clever you've made millions (or at least the odd hundred thousand) because you're so clever. Oh, by the way, to do, that as well as being so clever, you have to as an incidental matter be utterly A+ rated at memory management and tricky algorithms. If you're looking at only the latter incidental part, i.e., being utterly A+ rated at memory management and tricky algorithms, then sadly --- horribly ---- unfaily ---- bitterly ---- how can the world be so miserable? ---- you're "just" someone who's utterly A+ rated at memory management and tricky algorithms.
(OK, for all this bitterness and sadness, there is the exception of the extremely small number of purely extremely technical, really research, type ways to make money - in those cases sure, the only thing that matters is your various research breakthroughs, perhaps as a humorous side issue your amazing score on grouptheoryoverflow, and so on. But there are so few such jobs it's probably not really in the spirit of the question "getting a job in the real world." And - bitterly - they don't pay that much.)
- The question further is emphasising "high paying" jobs. (We'll ignore the issue of whether $100,000 p/a is high paying or not, since Bernanke's hyperinflation makes it hard to keep up with such numbers.) It's probably sadly even more true that the kind of realistic bitterness outlined in this answer, is more and more and more true if you are talking about not merely "a job" (where you are expected to do something specific that you will be told to do, provide a cog in the process), but A Real Job (where you are expected to positively generate massive amounts of money for the company somehow or other as a matter of course, day in and day out)
It's hard to keep up with current salaries everywhere; it could be that "$100,000 !" fits in to the "rare purely proufoundly technical" job I mention in the aside just above.
However, the spirit of the question in some sense seems to be - to paraphrase and simplify - do top jobs have anything much to do with specifically purely technical, mathematical, expertise?
Sadly the answer there is pretty much definitively no.
It's more the "smooching, glad-handling, compromising, deal-maker type" - or, if you prefer to be bitter in another direction - the "big picture, ideas driven and generating and follow-through type" - that can - simply - generate enough money that some business can afford to give the person that much money.
Don't forget - to say you want to "earn" some fabulous salary, what you're essentially saying is you can generate jobs. How so? If you're making 200k somewhere, you're a horse that is carrying a number (10? 25?) normal "do a job" employees on your back. You have to be a producer.
It is, sadly, difficult to see how some essentially test of excellence of technical knowledge (SO chat web site) can help with that.
Steve Jobs said it all - good engineers (he said) are not merely worth 10 or 20 ordinary engineers, they are worth some 100s of ordinary engineers ... they can generate that much product, stuff, free monthly cashflow, for the company. I think that's more what Jobs would think of as one of his superstars. It's difficult to see how purely the technical aspect (a necessity) can bring that.
If that's the sense of the question in terms of "big jobs," then that's probably the answer.