Free College is the wrong solution – middle class Americans end up footing the bill without boosting job supply.

Warren hopes to spend $1.25 trillion over 10 years to make two- and four-year public colleges free; she would also help students pay for housing, food and books. Sanders would eliminate undergraduate tuition at four-year public institutions by matching each $1 increase in state education spending with $2 from the federal government.

Under these regressive proposals, working-class taxpayers would wind up footing the bill for wealthy students who don’t need taxpayer help. According to the Brookings Institution, the majority of the benefit of eliminating tuition would go to students from the top half of the income distribution. But wealthier students can already pay for their education thanks to a combination of family wealth, work-study opportunities and future earnings from their degrees. Median college student debt at graduation was $29,800 in 2018, and the average worker with a bachelor’s degree earned $33,000 more per year than the average worker with a high school diploma. “Free College For All” would waste tax dollars on students who have no debt or whose debt is manageable. Education experts have voiced these concerns for years, but Warren and Sanders refuse to change tack.

The proposals also miss a larger point; “How can we make college more affordable?” is the wrong question. Instead, candidates should be asking, “How can we prepare every American to thrive in the 21st century economy?”

In considering this more fundamental question, candidates should evaluate whether a proposed policy—such as free college—is worthwhile relative to other workforce development options. An informed assessment would weigh both supply- and demand-side interventions to shape our workforce.

On the demand side, policymakers should identify the industries and professions that promise high wages, good benefits and relative stability. For example, industries requiring significant human interaction—such as health care and education—or technical finesse, such as technology fields—are promising. On the supply side, it is crucial to identify the skills required to excel in these jobs, understand where today’s workforce falls short and weigh a range of interventions that address these skills gaps.

Strategically investing public dollars in areas where supply and demand misalign can help job seekers find gainful employment and companies fill critical positions. Nursing professions, for example, promise stable, high-paying jobs and upward mobility; a nurse’s assistant can eventually become a nurse practitioner and earn $124,000 per year—more than double the average U.S. household income. However, a skill gap in nursing could create a shortage of 1 million nurses in the U.S. by 2020. Investing in professions like nursing benefits both job seekers and employers.