[maxxxxx]

" The price of college education is going up much faster than the cost of providing it. If you look at tuition vs what a professor is paid, one goes up much faster than the other. "

That's the most important question. Same applies to health care. Where does the money actually go and how has that changed over the last 50 years? Everybody immediately complains about their favorite scapegoat but there is no comprehensive accounting.

[diogenescynic]

Steve Ballmer was talking about how healthcare costs have gone up like 400% over a 30 year period but expected lifespans only increased by .6 years. We’re pahing exponentially more for relatively insignificant gains.

[gumby]

Let's not ignore quality of life, though I agree it probably hasn't increased "4X" (whatever that would mean).

[maxxxxx]

But where does the money go?

[bunderbunder]

Here's one study on the subject:

https://www.air.org/system/files/downloads/report/Delta-Cost...

The table on page 11 summarizes the story. The big consistent increases in spending are on student services and academic support.

The growth in spending on student services covers a lot of things. One big chunk is explained by the trend toward organizing and professionalizing things that were historically handled in a sort of ad-hoc manner by a student's academic advisor, sometimes by the Greek system, or by nothing at all: Career counseling and networking, academic advising, mental health services, stuff like that. Another big chunk is non-academic, non-instructional activities like student clubs and athletics. I believe advertising costs also tend to get lumped in under the "student services" budget item.

Academic support is stuff that's related, but maybe not quite so directly student facing: Dean's offices, instructional material development, the IT department, stuff like that.

[toomuchtodo]

In the case of healthcare, profits and inefficiencies.

[miscreanity]

Regulation inevitably squeezes it into government one way or another. The only long-term beneficiaries are the government itself which constantly requires more funding through any means possible, and those involved in regulatory capture - typically banks and large corporations.

It is important to note that relaxation of regulation is important as well, since the direction of that easement usually favors banks and big business[1] - it's a matter of perspective. Always ask what the true purpose of a political action or movement is and follow the money; more often than not there's an ulterior motive.

"All politicians should serve two terms: one in office and one in jail." ~My Grandfather

[1] https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/28362...

[neffy]

That´s not actually the case for the United States, if you look at government spending carefully, it´s actually shrinking as a percentage of the total money supply. People who like to claim that it´s growing, invariably fail to factor inflation and/or money supply growth into their charts.

The actual answer appears to be that it´s being squeezed into the financial sector by several positive feedback loops operating around lending, and in particular securitized lending - but that´s not the sort of answer that helps to pander to populist sentiment, and securitized lending is a trillion dollar industry - so you won´t see it discussed very much.

[miscreanity]

As I pointed out: entities involved in regulatory capture.

Money creation through debt is another topic, but still benefits primarily the same parties.

[dsr_]

It seems likely that your grandfather was quoting someone else, or perhaps he published the quip widely.

The earliest reference I see in Google is from 1992, with an Arizona anti-Semitic pamphlet.

[miscreanity]

Probably, I always wondered but hadn't found anything from a cursory search - thanks.