>>
>>I don't recall MLK proposing a free college plan that got slammed by most of the financial analysts in the country.
>>
>
>My first reply was a bit flip, and this subject deserves more thoughtful discussion.
>
>Let's look back at what started this thread
>
>>>
>Lifetime income rose modestly for the typical man who entered the labor force from 1957 to 1966. But then it began to decline. In all, the median lifetime income for men who began working in 1983 was lower than for men who started in 1967, by 10 percent to 19 percent, depending on the inflation measure used.
>That works out to a total lifetime income loss of $96,100 to $243,350 — even after accounting for the rise in the value of nonwage benefits. The decline was mainly a result of lower pay after adjusting for inflation, and not from reductions in weekly hours or years in the work force.
>>>
>
>My grandson will start college this year.
>
>Let's compare what I faced with I graduated in 1958 with what he'll face when he graduates.
>
>The tuition at the private liberal arts college I went to on Long Island - now Adelphi University - was about $800/year. Sounds ridiculously low by today's standards, but without the help I got from the GI bill and scholarships, I couldn't have afforded even that much.
>
>When I graduated and landed a job as a programmer trainee at a huge insurance company, my salary was $5,200/yr.
>Most of my fellow vets got similar salaries.
>$5,200 was more than 5 times my annual tuition and exceeded the entire cost of tuition for 4 years.
>
>Let's look at what my grandsons are facing.
>Average tuition at private colleges is about $33,000/yr
>To be on a par with me, they'd have to start at $165,000 and of course they won't.
>Yes, they could go to state schools with lower costs, but if I had gone to a state school, the comparative numbers would be even more dramatic.
>These are two national merit scholars in the top 5 of their high school classes, so they'll be OK, but look at the hole they'll be in.
>Think of the kids who are not national merit scholars.
>
>Yes, college costs are crazy and should be lower, but this is a dramatic manifestation of what declining real income means. Had real incomes kept pace with costs, as they did for the decades after I graduated, things would be a lot different.


Let us stipulate that productivity has risen more than total income and "real income" (loose operational definition: buying power after taxation and other forced dues) has grown less than to be expected by official measures of inflation.

College cost seems to have exploded far beyond other parts of the basket measuring inflation, so to me the question seems to be why are no cheaper education opportunities (no frills or safe spaces...) available, but things like Trump university seem to find a market to divide earnings from marks ?

While buying power of average worker probably has declined, most of the expensive personal things are still not that far out of economic power, as markets for housing and cars are still alive. And my guess is that buying power in basic life necessities like food and clothing actually rose.
And in cost of electronics buying power rose sharply, even considering always "current" devices as part of the basket.

So could it be that college cost has risen to the tipping point of available credit for it and additional money is squandered ?