Let’s pretend that when you become more educated in a field or more skilled at a trade, you gain “knowledge points.” These “knowledge points” are universal among all fields and trades. You get more points the more educated or skilled you are in any given field or trade.
So, a really proficient plumber could have 26 knowledge points while a mediocre banker could have 14 knowledge points. You don’t get more knowledge points if your field or trade garners higher wages.
Now, think of a diversified dilettante. Lets say they’re educated in ancient Greek (15 points), Turkish history (21 points), and rocket mechanics (30 points). They are also very skilled at violin (13 points), several different forms of martial arts (22 points), and cooking (11 points).
On the other hand, think of a highly specialized lawyer. They don’t have much interest in anything other than an encyclopedic knowledge of precedent court cases on patent claims for a very particular kind of semiconductor technology (57 points). Additionally, they play tennis (8 points) on the weekends, but they aren’t very good.
The diversified dilettante might have a sum of 112 knowledge points between all his interests and skills, while the highly specialized lawyer might have 65 knowledge points just from his law research and tennis skills.
But who will be paid more? In our modern economy, it’s the highly specialized lawyer, every time. And rightly so, if we assume economic goals. Just like international trade benefits from countries specializing in certain resources or services, there is a lot of economic value from synergies between specialized individuals in the labor force.
I do wonder, however, if we have lost some non-economic value due to a capitalist moral system that applauds the high pay from specialization and therefore discourages cultivating a wide array of interests and skills, which might have synergies in their own right, just not economic ones.