This is a continuing problem. People ask for changes that affect the whole Job, then insist it won't matter to "casuals" since they expect that "casuals" will just not press the buttons and be fine doing less healing/damage. While it's true some will, others won't, and may notice the difference. But we're told no one will and it will only affect the hardcore of the hardcore players and no one else.
When proposing solutions, it's important to accurately portray the cost-benefit analysis. While you might think that the benefits outweigh the costs, whenever someone tells you there are NO costs to their proposal, they're pretty much always lying, since everything has trade-offs and costs. So then you have to look into what they're leaving out. The bigger problem then becomes, when this is explained to them, instead of admitting reality and presenting arguments for why it still works or compromises to address the concerns, they just continue to insist there are no costs even though everyone else can see them. This then diminishes the likelihood people who disagree will agree with them, because now they see not only their disagreements but that the other side is lying/not presenting ideas/arguments in good faith.
I don't know who all needs to hear it, but YES, making changes to Jobs affects everyone that plays the Job unless the changes are completely redundant or have no actual effects. E.g. converting a 1-2-3 into a 1-1-1 or a 1-1-1 into a 1-2-3 where the 1, 2, and 3 buttons all do the same exact damage as each other (for example, give WHM a Stone, Aero, Water "rotation", but all the spells do identical damage so someone casting Glare Glare Glare gets the exact same outcome) wouldn't affect anyone, but it also would be a pointless proposal. Making Dia 12 sec duration instead of 30 would affect every WHM player except those who outright don't use Dia at all ever. And I've been assured that 80+% uptime is the average, making non-Dia players exceedingly rare by corollary.
.
It's time to stop saying things that aren't true. These changes WOULD affect everyone. Saying they wouldn't doesn't make one's argument stronger, it makes it weaker by being associated with a lie.
Instead, arguments must be presented to either support the change as a "greater good" anyway, or compromise modifications to minimize the impact and effect.