This is really something. 30 years, and we're moving backwards. This is completely unacceptable, we need to rethink the foundations of our society if we're failing so many people who work hard and play by the rules.
A ton of startup founders striking it rich were already rich.
A ton of scientists in the medieval and rennaisance era were already rich.
People who went to university back in the day had an advantage because they had knowledge no one else had.
I'm seeing a couple of patterns, they are:
1. You need to have a solid base in life and quite some free time in order to invest in a competitive advantage. This used to be knowledge, but now this is less the case.
2. People who are able to game supply/demand mechanics will win in the game of money. Some people don't play that game, they also win (by focusing on their own goals). Other people who do play that game simply lose.
3. Currently having a strong network is a competitive advantage.
I feel like these things really follow the theory of (I forgot what it was called): something that is an advantage becomes a requirement 15/30 years later.
We see this within the realm of college competition itself. 20 years ago, shiny new dorms, rec facilities, and food service was a competitive advantage. Now, it's a requirement that drives up costs for everyone.
I could not find the "quote" you cited above in the article. The actual quote from the article (at least as shown by outline.com) is: "Americans with a bachelor’s degree earned less in real terms last year than in 1990, according to New York Fed data."
At the same time, earning for > Bachelors degrees has continued to rise (https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/07/ourworldindata_ch...) suggesting that, as others here have noted, the ubiquity of college has driven the marketplace to reward higher degrees in the way that it once rewarded a bachelors. Although that's probably a bad thing from the perspective of student debt, since it means students will need to attend school even longer at higher cost to compete.
My gut says that a lot of this debt and reduced job prospects come from those 50% of institutions founded in the last 30 years. But I admittedly don't know enough about the subject to say for sure.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
Bryan Caplan argues it's about signaling: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/03/12/the-case-against-educatio.... Bizarrely, none of these articles cite his work.
If so, then the signal is getting weaker, as more people acquire it.
Seeing buyer's remorse is consistent with Caplan's work.
If you don't have clout, experience or money you're also in a very disadvantaged position to change any of those rules or have anyone believe your ideas will really improve the outcome of said rules.