It could be the case—but I’m not aware of much evidence to support this. Over the last hundred years we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people on sinecures and a collapse in the selectiveness—e.g. the rise of state pensions, unemployment insurance, disability insurance. There are a few successes (JK Rowling credits state benefits with allowing her to write Harry Potter, for example) but clearly a much lower rate than under the prior model.
Surely both things can be true at once—that it’s been historically very useful and also a shame that it’s available to so few?
It could be the case—but I’m not aware of much evidence to support this. Over the last hundred years we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people on sinecures and a collapse in the selectiveness—e.g. the rise of state pensions, unemployment insurance, disability insurance. There are a few successes (JK Rowling credits state benefits with allowing her to write Harry Potter, for example) but clearly a much lower rate than under the prior model.