Labor and its dichotomy (and union with love)

When performing a task, one has opportunity cost that can be used on other things. Economics has taught me this one simple premise (and current ideas between Pisces separating to the the wavy bands of Aquarius is true.) As one performs that one task, then that one task is itself will constrain the mind and body from other tasks to be completed; but at what point will the task that is unique to the position of labor be maximized if the labor unit (worker/human) was trained with more skills? This fundamental question is the dichotomy between specialization of labor and pluralization.

Specialization is the unique set of skills that become defined for that position and is near maximized for production (or is maximized, but we are all human, right?)

Pluralization is the opposite, it is all the knowledge and skill sets that exist in one being, quality is iffy. An example is jack of all trades, master of none.

So then, why pluralize and by how much if needed?
It does depend on how much marketing, the firm, and the general need of labor is in demand for that idea. Mixing the two can provide a whole human (or adapt the position to the whole human) into a more productive unit. Compensation is increased and guaranteed back to the business. And, the employee has more skills for life's improvements (community improvement.) This can also stretch the labor needed for any business by providing less labors needed per unit. In other words a productivity boost.
Too much pluralization, or too many skills, then the laborer will decline in expected productivity relative to what is available to be productive.

Balance is up to management and the employee to maximize the business productivity.

NOTE: This might be a third dimension type skill and needs to refined when time becomes sped up. Then time increases (or resource expense) then more labor will be needed per unit produced regardless of knowledge or skill.

Therefore, what happens if there is too much specialization? The answer is true, brainwashing, soul-washing, and other forms of persuasive measure to make sure the employee becomes part of economic dogma can become true overtime; over generations. Why, the natural path of not knowing more than what work is required? To constrain the earning power of the next marginal (in time and unit produced) of a raise to the employee (more cost to business.)) Then, how to cause a raise? Reduce the burdens of auxiliary costs to hiring and doing business; therefore making the product more profitable for all (buyers and sellers.) (Note that all markets (industires) are placed on a scale and measured against Gross and/or Net Domestic Product and facilitated as if it is technically going to produce a profit to society or not relative to the whole of society (macro.) This is also true with equity and liability markets as well. The simpler the balance sheets across all sectors the easier it is to see where the technical growth should be (time, money, or utility of wants/desires.)