You are again resorting to moral arguments. You need to stop that since your morality really should not be the focus of discussion.
You are also being utterly illogical by pretending that socioeconomic upbringing does not impact course selection. You recently posted a paper showing how universities have become basically job factories whereby young people go to get their papers stamped so they can make more money. Are you going to try to pretend that people raised without any economic cares are not going to be more prone to taking courses without as much regard to likely economic payoff?
You are the one who tried to say that people who "don't worry about money" take soft courses, ie. they want some kind of easy ticket.
Yes, the universities are seen as a ticket to middle-class life but that is not how things will turn out for these people. And the assessment of why people go to university/college doesn't cast aspersions on their course choices, how much they work and so on. Those are your assumptions. If I am wrong then ok, let's move on.
That's just arrogance. It will have almost no impact on me either. Both of us make lots of money. It WILL have a negative impact on lower economic earners, however, who will find things getting more expensive. This will transfer money from them to minimum wage earners, just as it transfers it from you and me. But we have a sufficiently high income we'll barely notice.
Arrogance ? It sounds like you and I are in the same boat and have the same take on it, so....
Which economic decision? This raise is not based on economics and you know it.
Ok, we are talking past each other.
Yes, I concur that this is being submitted for political reasons, cloaked in a high moral cause. I don't think there is much point in us discussing that angle in depth other than tagging it as being done for political reasons cloaked in high moral cause.
Also I want to point out that the best argument against such changes, politically, is to say that they will not work.