I just fundamentally disagree. Undergrads tend to have a pretty rudimentary understanding of research methods, and it isn't until grad school that most people genuinely engage with the process. Developing expertise in research methods requires familiarity with how publishing and peer review work, how different knowledge is stored/archived, indexed, searched, and retrieved, and how the different tools and institutions fit into that broader research ecosystem.

Yes, everything needs to be learned on the job, as well, but I'd expect that to be built on a solid foundation. And a master's degree seems like an appropriate amount of schooling for that foundation.

Compare to lawyers, doctors, and university professors. You expect them to have some level of broader academic background before specialization, and an ongoing obligation to continue to learn through professional development, throughout the rest of the career.

None of this is a new invention. The MLS isn't a degree that some degree mill invented 10 years ago. The ALA defined that as the baseline educational standard in 1953. And the trend is towards opening up more entry level positions to those who only have bachelor's, which is an important counterpoint to the comments that seem to believe that this is some kind of credential inflation, where you need more education today than 25 or 50 years ago, in order to do a particular job.

Actually, "None of these things are anything I know anything about, therefore it must be simple and stupid" is what you meant to say. I know words are hard; you're simple and stupid.