And? What's the problem?

I see it as a net positive for society. If someone wants to clean toilets, they can do so. Right now, the people who clean our toilets might not want to do it. They are forced.

The "non-highly-trained" people can spend their time to get "highly trained", since they're not locked in to cleaning toilets anymore.

How is this a worse scenario than the one we have now?

The highly trained of today fear the devaluation of their training. They would like to keep their relatively advantaged position, they are the ones with something to lose.

> The highly trained of today fear the devaluation of their training.

Also the devaluation of training would create another disincentive that would keep some people from acquiring training in the first place. Don't know if society would benefit from this result, I think it wouldn't.

>Also the devaluation of training would create another disincentive that would keep some people from acquiring training in the first place.

Then having that training, if anyone actually needed it, would be a highly valuable trait.

I don't see how this is different from the rest of society. "Cleaning toilets" sounds like it lacks dignity, but to an art history major "social media marketing" or "event planning" might feel like cleaning toilets.

We all make compromises.

Dignity is stupid anyways (https://newrepublic.com/article/64674/the-stupidity-dignity ).