> If people wanted to buy them then builders would build them. It’s like why they don’t sell feature phones in the US, although they’re still common in India and Africa.

There are two parts to buying a house. The fixed costs (land, infrastrucutre, permits, getting it up to code), and the variable costs (cost per square foot).

The fixed costs have ballooned. I can wish to buy a cheap house all I want, but none exist on the market, and none can be built. Only expensive houses can be built. The only choice people have is between buying an expensive small house, or an expensive large house. Just because people rationally choose the latter option does not mean that there isn't demand for affordable housing, and it does not mean that housing has become cheaper. A particular metric of housing (Square footage) has become cheaper, but housing itself has not.

Imagine if computers became a million times faster, but a thousand times more expensive (Because the fixed costs of building a single computer ballooned). By a particular metric (FPOS), they are now a thousand times cheaper. By any sane measurement (How much does a computer cost), they are now a thousand times more expensive.

> If we’re talking about public policy responses to the perceived inflation in cost of living, then yes, reducing the need for college should be part of the discussion.

It's off-topic to the question of whether or not a single average male income is enough to support a family in the US in 2020. You cite that Germany exists, and that we should follow their model. I agree with that, but it is completely irrelevant to this question.

> 75% of college students are enrolled in public institutions. If people wanted to make college more affordable by restricting spending on these amenities, they would do so.

Also irrelevant. Is college less, or more affordable than it used to be? I don't care about the reasons for why. I'd just like an answer to that question, as a starting point, so that we can actually have a conversation about whether or not its worth it.

>
Not true. There is very detailed data on this. On average, employers cover 75% of the premiums for family coverage.

The data you cited absolutely does not show that that, for a number of reasons.

1. Their definition of family is not 2 spouses + 2 children. In fact, as far as I can tell, their definition of a family is ~2.4 people. [1]

2. This will grossly distort the numbers, to make them look better then they really are. If that table only included the employer/employee split for 4-person families, the numbers would look quite different.

3. Many of those families have 2 spouses, who are both working, and are pooling their insurance. If your employer covers 75% of your insurance premiums, and 0% of your spouse's premiums, and both spouses are working, then this results in the chart you linked showing a 25%/75% split. When in reality, it's not.

4. If you had a chart that only showed 4-person families, with only one person in them working, then you would see vastly different numbers.

[1] Compare the spending in your link to the per-capita spending in https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/health-spending-pe..., and you'll see that the 'family' in the table you linked contains 2.4 people.