`  : For the benefit of the many, let's elaborate on ``A clear misuse of Juran's assumption (...)``:  : In manufacturing, systems are designed so that everybody contributes a pre-defined amount of work, especially in synchronous settings such as assembly lines. Nobody could argue for a Pareto distribution there.  : In agriculture and mining, individual contributions are sometimes measurable (e.g. basketful of apples picked per person per shift). A for-profit organization seeks out ``good`` workers, so the bottom part of the distribution will not be represented at all. Family and community operations often find a way to gainfully employ persons with less strength (e.g. 11-year-old girls) or with disabilities (e.g. blind people), but their number is not large enough to warrant a Pareto distribution.  : Which brings us to the only economic system many readers have experience of: The services sector. In it, there is a place for ``stars`` in fields like moviemaking and advertising, where moneymaking ability is so narrowly distributed that it can sustain not just an 80:20 modeling, but 90:10 and even 99:1 (think of the distribution of pay in the fashion modeling world).  : In other service areas, such as software development, it has been argued (and many influential minds such as Frederick Brooks and Joel Spolsky have devised methods for measuring and quantifying this) that a top designer, programmer, or QA person is roughly ten times as effective  as an average one.  :It can be agued that this observation distribution does not carry to other areas of computing such as system administration.  : Finally, the difference between top waiters (or shoe salespeople) and average ones may not warrant any Pareto analysis.  :  `