The need for "rock star programmers"

A few days ago, there was a post on Slashdot questioning the need for "rock star programmers".  I took some issue with that post.  I'm not going to question the definition of a rock star programmer.  I'm not going to claim to be a rock star programmer.  My issue with the post is when a company should use a rock star programmer.  The author of the post classifies programs on a scale from 1 to 10 based on complexity/difficulty.  He claims rock star programmers are only needed when solving a 10.  Therefore, most companies don't need rock star programmers because they usually don't have problems above a 6 or a 7.  I disagree with that assertion.  I don't look at good programmers as people who tackle difficult problems.  To me, a good programmer provides a good solution to the problem, regardless of the difficulty/complexity.  If you rate solutions from 1 to 10, then rock star programmers can create a 10 solution to 1 problem.

I think the quality of the solution is more important than the fact that a person has found a solution.  I have seen bad solutions where ever I go.  If your company has a bunch of 6 problems, but you get a bunch of 1 solutions, then your infrastructure is just plain bad.

Hire rock star programmers.  Hire good programmers.  Get good solutions.  Have a good infrastructure.  Don't just solve the problem as cheaply (poorly) as you can.  A rock star programmer can crank out a 10 solution in the time it takes a weak programmer to create a 1 solution.