A century or so ago, each town of any size would have a music hall along with its resident performers, some were bit better than others, but there was enough work for thousands of them to make a comfortable living. Then along comes recording technology. Now everyone in the country has access to the work of the top-notch performers, so that's what they all buy, and before you know it there's a small handful of artists who become fabulously wealthy, whilst all the music halls close, and everyone else is reduced to singing in pubs for beer money.
This is a good point and a powerful argument for local authorities to support arts venues. Of course it would help if the people thus being subsidised were required to make material that appeals to ordinary people instead of other artistic intellectual types, so that the arts really served their community...
In a world where everyone gets a degree, someone still has to clean toilets, stack shelves, and pick litter. The philosophy of the meritocracy denies that to a very large extent the economy is a zero-sum game: yes, anyone can become Prime Minister, but only at the expense of the other 66,999,999 who don't.
To avoid this very real problem a system designed for equality of opportunity must be based around education, and designed to help individuals thrive and support themselves. Otherwise it stops becoming a meritocracy but success by Fiat*. This is where sadly a lot of the left wing of politics frequently miss the point. Hold up one definition of success as the ideal, which as you say creates a zero sum game and is also damaging because individuals make different choices: 67 million people don't want to become prime minister. These 67 million people all want to do different things and need help to achieve their choices
Secondly, and most dangerously, some people on the left politics insist on equality of outcome, rather then equality of opportunity, so having decided on an "ideal" outcome they then try to make it easier for
approved people to achieve it, so the "right" groups among the 67 million people who "should" want to be prime minister actually have a greater opportunity.
This is politely known as corruption: giving people opportunities above other people without giving them responsibility.
Equality of opportunity is also better for people in the long run because it means individuals have assistance but that ultimately they need to take responsibility.
When training refugees I have a variety of tools available to assist them: we have assistance in language training, access to psychological help; we can give our own practical training in use of tools and materials and assistance in making a CV and a covering letter. We help them get to an interview, and arrange for an internship insured and supervised by us.
What we can't do is impose quotas. Employers are in no way obliged to take our clients on, and this is important because it's fairer on other people applying for work, but more importantly it means the responsibility is the client's: they have to make the choice of what they want to do, and take the steps to get there.
We have to aim for equal opportunities, not equality of outcome.
*
I'm sure that has a name ending in "ocracy" but I confess I don't know what it is. So much for trying to sound smart.