[randomdata]

Assuming you are, like the article, referring to the USA, the only schooling that may necessitate a massive loan is post-secondary (as in after primary and secondary) schooling. The government has done a great job of controlling costs of schooling up to that point. It is confusing to me why you call that optional tertiary level of schooling a basic item? According to the OCED, only 48% of American adults have post-secondary attainment. The other 52%, a majority, seem to be managing without, living long and fulfilling lives.

It is understandable why you call housing a basic item. The small percentage without are often left to parish if the lack of shelter isn't quickly corrected. That is a real problem. But is any meaningful portion of the population actually taking out massive loans to make rent? In my experience, a massive loan is difficult to get even when you have a security to back it with. I am surprised that someone struggling to pay the rent each month has any collateral to put up against the loan.

[noelwelsh]

Loan for housing is just lazy writing on my part. I should have made it clear I meant the cost of housing.

For education, OP's article made a strong case for tertiary education (as the only group seeing wage growth). Also, if you believe that inequality and lack of social mobility are bad things then you should believe that all people should have easy access to tertiary education.

[randomdata]

> OP's article made a strong case for tertiary education (as the only group seeing wage growth

If wages are growing for this group, then it stands to reason that costs of joining this group should also be also rising. Economically speaking, there cannot be a disparity where simply having a tertiary education leaves you better off than not having it. If there is, then people will join that group, driving up costs and negating the disparity. The economy always finds equilibrium given enough time.

It's a similar situation to housing. As an advocate for lost-cost rural living, I have asked a lot of people why they choose the high-cost city. The answer is always the same: Their higher paying job justifies the higher cost of living. And thus living costs are rising to reach equilibrium with rural areas. There, again, cannot be a financial advantage to living in the city, else people will move there, drive up costs and negate the disparity.

Any time wages rise for a particular group, costs have to as well. It is the only way the balance will remain in the economy. The exception is when you don't let all people join that group. Without access, then people cannot move to find that balance. There is why everyone who is ultra-wealthy are so due to exclusive property rights (land, intellectual property, etc.) that are out of reach to everyone else.

[noelwelsh]

We have fundamentally different beliefs about the world. I don't believe access to education needs to be controlled by ability to pay, for example. (And costs of education are rising faster than wages, as demonstrated in the article. Also, some people enjoy living in the city.)

[randomdata]

> I don't believe access to education needs to be controlled by ability to pay

Education is accessible to everyone for free. Not to be confused with schooling, which is presumably what you are trying to point to here. The government already provides all of the schooling one needs to be a useful member of society for free.

If someone wants to attend guitar school to learn how to play guitar on top of that, I am not sure why it cannot be controlled by the ability to pay. Learning how to play the guitar is a useful skill and all, but the time of guitar teachers is a limited resource. There has to be some way to manage that.

[noelwelsh]

Ok, I'm out of this conversation. I'm not interested in playing games.

[randomdata]

I am not sure which game you are referring to?

You are quite welcome to explain why everyone should have equal access to guitar school, schooling provided beyond the schooling the government provides to everyone. It is not clear to me why that is beneficial. What do we, as a society, gain by allowing everyone a chance to learn how to play guitar, irrespective of how much money they have?

I suspect the game here is that you are staring to realize that it is not actually beneficial to provide schooling to everyone beyond the schooling we already provide to everyone.