In a way, cushiness was forcefully taken away via democritization. Just as a rich father may gives his son a sinecure, a rich country gives its citizens sinecur

In a way, cushiness was forcefully taken away via democritization. Just as a rich father may gives his son a sinecure, a rich country gives its citizens sinecures out of excess wealth. Competition amongst people though rapidly reduces the sinecure to no longer be sinecures. Taxi cabs may have had a monopoly, and people were willig to work for less to driver ubers (eg poor college students) but they did not have a sinecure. Many were struggling to make ends meet. And they had been struggling for years. And so did not have the energy to pursue, say, learning Haskell. Just as there are laws to prevent olympic atheletes from taking a super drug, breaking all records, and then dropping dead, what governs society should have rules to prevent people working themselves to death. Unions were once the answer, but their major drawback is reducing competitiveness. In attempting to keep sinecures sinecures, you become less competitive. Meanwhile, the peasant rice farmer is saving every penny to buy his kids a better education and even beating them when they get too low of a math score. An american who is used to runnning water, electricity, and all night raves who is struggling to pass his college algebra class has nothing on the poor farmers son who grew up in a mud hut and was forced into learning calculus in high school at belts end. Who deserves the cushy job? The college student example may outwardly express a desire to have a fairer world, but also may resent the poorer peasant racing them to the bottom and the more educated peasants rapidly surpassing them in salary, (eg they get a tech job).