Ping.................
Is it just me, or do the listed professions all have common factors in that they 1: produce nothing, 2: take no talent, and 3: are occupied by rather dense individuals?
Over-specialization is a unintended consequence of a college degree for every person and a college degree required for any job.
There is no benefit to being a person described as “good worker, smart, learns fast” anymore. You must have spent a nominal 4 years (preferably 6-8) studying something in a formal institution. So, everyone becomes a specialist because HR departments demand it. In fact, in HR Management praxis, a “specialist” is paid considerably more money than a “generalist”, even a well-experienced generalist, because the assumption is that the specialist can do much more in their area of focus. With all things being equal, this is true. But all other things are rarely equal (i.e. the experience level of a generalist).
American business has created the specialist monster, not Progressivism. Progressives are just better at gaming the system than Conservatives. It is really their greatest strength.
Two other issues with specialization:
(i) Specialized fields often attract fellow travelers in terms of politics and belief systems; having generalists around with sufficient understanding to independently critically assess their “profession” limits their political power and reach. On the flip side, having tightly sequestered specialists with no critical review leads to the rise of pseudo-scientific disciplines like the many “studies” we have today.
(ii) True geniuses are capable of making lasting contributions to many fields, which is missed through specialization.
There was a term used back when a classical education was the norm.
Renaissance Man. They were men who were classically educated in Latin, Greek, Philosophy, History, Law, Agriculture, Engineering, Science, and the Military arts.