But anyway, in economic terms, for the purposes of figuring out if college is a good investment or not, it doesn't matter if the gap is as large as it is because "the value of a college grad is going up" or because "the value of someone without a college degree is going down''. Either way, it means the opportunity cost to the economy when someone who had the academic skills to have gotten a college education but couldn't afford to is higher.

The problem is that, ironically, you're using supply side economics to justify your argument for college education which is creating a bubble and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

By making a college degree the norm it's made jobs that previously required NO degree have a new barrier to entry to the workplace. As thus, a college degree is worth more due to the lack of non-college degree jobs, even if said job doesn't need a degree to function.

But then that only pushes non-college degree holders out of more jobs, which exacerbates the wage gap, which necessitates more college grads, which makes it more of a norm, etc. See how this artificial bubble works? That's ALREADY creating unnecessary stresses on the free market you are espousing

Not to mention, you should know that most nations that provide free college education limit the # of citizens that can get it. It's not universal and the idea of transferring universities if you do better later isn't as common as in the US. Not to mention, not every nation's college is the equivalent four year degree - some only are 3 years, or have their majors structured differently (like med school in the US differs from med school in Europe in length and structure) - hence why nations like India don't pump out equivalent grads despite being degree holders in the same major.

And why is this supply side economics? Because your whole argument is that a larger supply of more workers (or in 1980s Reaganomics, more people with $$$ through tax cuts) will mean more jobs created by more college grads (just like the argument being big bosses having more $ to hire) or more college grads available (more consumers with $$) which will surely necessitate creating more jobs for them

Except, of course, history has shown that to largely be bunk. Companies didn't create more jobs or hire more people they didn't need to when they got money just as companies don't hire more people simply because there are more qualified people. Demand drives the employment and wage market