Phrases such as “Just do it yourself” or “anyone can do it” or “it’s easy!” Some sort of fallacy?

So, I’ve been thinking of an argument or even just a statement that in my view at least, seems to be a fallacy. Perhaps some sort of fallacy of assumption, because it assumes (and asserts) that everyone has the same inherent (or even acquired) skills, talents, and abilities and capacities. Formulaically the argument might look something like this:

Person A has an ability, talent, skill, circumstance etc.

Person B asks Person A for help with one of Person A’s skills. 

Person A declines to help Person B citing the argument “if I can do it, anyone can do it! Just do it yourself, it’s easy!” 

Example: 

P1: I really need installing a new ceiling fan in my home, but I don’t know anything about wiring and don’t want to cause a fire or other hazard. You work as an electrician for a living, would you come install it, I’ll gladly pay you for your time.

P2: You could do that yourself, it’s so easy! Anyone can install wiring! You don’t need to know what you’re doing, so just do it!

Of course, maybe anyone could learn, but not everyone has time for everything. It seems to me not amount of studying YouTube videos and then trying to install something as intricate as the wiring in a home will substitute for actual specialized training. A layman who knows nothing about electricity should always consult an expert, for if one knows what they are doing, it’s alright. If one doesn’t know what they are doing, it can be catastrophic. P2 is assuming that just because it comes easy and natural for them, and they have the experience and knowledge, that everyone else has it as well. This seems to me what I would call the objectivist fallacy, which is the opposite of the subjectivist fallacy. The error is assuming that because x is true for a certain person, situation, or group, means that x is true for everyone. Also, even if one were to have the innate “skill,” it takes time to learn, and one may not have the time to learn how to do something so intricate when urgency is of the essence. 

Another example: 

P1: Why do you collect paintings and pay people to paint for you when you could just paint something yourself?

P2: I’d rather an experienced and skilled artist create what I want, as I lack the technical ability and knowledge to create such works par excellence. 

P1: Anyone can paint equally well! You just need to bring out the artist in you! Everyone has artistic ability and it’s so easy! Just do it yourself!  

It has always seemed to me that people are born with different inclinations and capacities towards things. P1 is making the same argument that anyone can pick up a guitar and play on the level of Jimi Hendrix. This is simply not the case. Some people will have a “knack” for it, and some will not. Perhaps one can attain the skill level with years of practice, but that takes time and learning. It is unrealistic that a person can have the knowledge, technical ability, and time for everything, hence why we consult experts in certain fields to assist us when something is “beyond our pay grade.” P1 seems to be under the assumption that everyone has the same ability, knowledge, capacity, and resources at any given time. I would think that empirical evidence demonstrates that some people have an ability for one thing, while another person has another. Basically, people have different skill levels. Sure, one can say “art is subjective, man!” But I’m talking about actual technical knowledge and ability, as not everyone has those things in the same amounts for any given trade, skill, craft, or endeavor. 

As I say, this seems to be a version of the objectivist fallacy, but is there another fallacy that could fit here as well? Perhaps hasty generalization or others? Also, the objectivist fallacy I don’t think has been added to the site yet, but I have discussed it with Dr. Bo before in a past inquiry, and it likely will be added at some point. What fallacy do you think fits here? 

RationalWiki calls this the 'pragmatic' fallacy.

Here's what it looks like in a syllogism:

P) X helped person Y.

Implicit P), fallacious: If something helps person Y, it will help anyone.

C) X will help everyone.

The implicit premise is an example of amazing familiarity. We can't know for certain if X will help everyone, especially if we haven't tested that hypothesis in any way. Thus, if we only know that X helped person Y, we can only draw a conclusion about person Y.

However, before calling fallacy, I'd consider the possibility we are just dealing with an approximation. Someone who says "everyone can do X" or "anyone can do Y" is probably just saying, "most people can do it (because it does not take much skill)." This would simply be an opinion.

I don't see these easy refrains as whole fallacies;  they strike me as more like cliches, in which case they perhaps qualify as a type of thought-terminating cliche?