Why is 500-600 ranked in rapid so competitive?

It's like he thought his own pieces were going to mate him so he ran to seek asylum with the enemy.

that game was a meme

Admittedly this thread is long and I haven’t read every response, but let me say: i just got into chess a few weeks ago and I play on 3 different accounts (phone, work and laptop) two of my accounts are 800-900 while this one is a lowly 500. 
I can say, without a doubt, that the 500s I face here are more skilled than the 800-900s I face on the other 2 accounts. I’m not sure the statistical terminology, but there seems to be a skill pit around the 600 mark where players all get stuck vs. people playing a bit higher than their ratings. I suspect it’s related to most players new to chess being rated too high after their 5 intro games and then being stuck in matchmaking with others growing at their same pace. Basically we are getting better, but so are the people in our matchmaking pool so our scores never increase. Comments? Concerns? Fallacies? Conjecture? 

Original poster, don't make me laugh, lol.  You have over 1,100 games, 30 days ago you were a little over 900 ELO rating.  If it were so easy in ~1,000 ELO bracket like you claimed, why did your ELO keep dropping?  

And not to mention your ELO used to be 1,200 back in July, 2020.  What happened there, chief?

He has never had a 1200 rating. His highest rapid was 1011.

That was my starting ELO in July 2020, chief. I started without knowing the basics of chess and dropped down to about 500 and have now climbed up to 900-1000 since the making of this post.

You responded to an old thread to try and roast me for perfectly normal progression, lol. I'm doing fine, +400 ELO in like 6 months

Sometime I played 30 blunders .Can you imagine!

Some games are like there’s an advantage but Ye missed it, and people don’t even know that, and they get what like 50 accuracy

As a fellow player stuck in the 500s I would love it if someone would bring their king out like that.

It's tough out there, though. The ratings are relative. I hover around 550 on the site but I can beat scrub players IRL pretty easily. The thing is, there are eight million players on Chess.com.

I'm only recently getting highly interested in chess but I've been playing and studying daily for the last month and I still haven't cracked 600. Having a good time, though, so it's all good!

What happens is that they don't put pressure on the opponent, they don't create problems that force mistakes. They play very simple so if they make imprecisions but not so many serious mistakes playing against each other, but against a stronger opponent they will make those serious mistakes.

It's all that or you just don't see the mistakes, the mistakes don't have to be hanging pieces, it may be the tactical level that doesn't force their opponents to lose pieces. The higher the rating, the more inventive the game and force more mistakes to the opponent.

They blunder all the time my son is at 900ish in rapid and the other day I watched him go down a queen and a bishop 2 bishops queen rook vs knight rook and with just a knight and rook he gobbled up all the pieces promoted and won the game.  I'm sure there are some total noobs with new accounts at 1200 but they soon become 400 if they play enough. 

It's true! It's frustrating to review my games and see those mistakes and blunders. I know my problem is in the middle game and that there are opportunities and dangers that I'm just not seeing. What can I do, though? I just keep taking the lessons here on Chess.com and doing the puzzles and playing against humans and progressively more challenging bots.

I think something to keep in mind as a sub-1200 player is that the point isn't to compare ourselves to those more experienced than we are. It's to keep enjoying the pursuit of the game and to keep improving.

Four days ago, I posted in this thread about how I couldn't crack 600. Well... that was then. Then I went on a five-game win streak. I'm nowhere close to being a good player in the grand scheme of things, but I'm better than I was a month ago.  It's incremental progress. Also known as progress.

Most people, even at 800-1100 level, will not play a 12-blunder game. That is why they are in the videos. 

If it was a normal 3-7 blunder game, what is interesting about it? Where's the content?

If the blunders your opponents make do not seem obvious, try to remember the patterns. Blunders are full of patterns. That is why the general consensus for people around your level is to improve in tactics. 

edit: i saw you got to 1100. Congrats!

sometime its happen i think i never did 10 blunder or more when i'm still 500-600 rapid elo level i did occasionally in bullet but that was bullet , tho i ever get like 28 accuracy prob like my lowest accuracy but that because i havent focused in chess yet and i'm still 200 elo back then

game review barely give me 1 blunder (prob 1 blunder per 5-8 game ) as 1100 rapid elo player

I'm 450, I often have 1-3 blunders, but definitely more sometimes too hah.

This is too true, people at 600 elo be playing like Magnus Carlsen moves, its impossible for them to blunder