I fear that Matt is conflating a couple different arguments here. On the one hand, no one disputes that there's a college wage premium, though it's been stagnant in recent years. The question at hand is the link between college and inequality. If inequality is a simple function of educational attainment, then the economy remains a relative meritocracy, and reversing the trend is a simple matter of sending more people to school (though, as Matt does point out, that's easier said than done). If not, then it's a function of any number of forces, ranging from globalization to tax rates to corporate culture, that speak to deeper inequities in our economy, and might require more direct government intervention. This is why lots of conservatives are invested in the education explanation, and Bush says things like, "The reason [for inequality] is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education," and David Brooks writes columns that pin inequality entirely on "the education gap." Everyone, after all, can agree on more education (it's just hard to implement). But not everyone can agree on higher tax rates. And what does the evidence show? Well, the gap in education is a problem, to be sure, but it's been a long time since it was a plausible driver of the increase in inequality. That's not to say going to college won't increase your income. It will. But the two are different questions. THE CONEHEAD ECONOMY STRIKES BACK!
I fear that Matt is conflating a couple different arguments here. On the one hand, no one disputes that there's a college wage premium, though it's been stagnant in recent years. The question at hand is the link between college and inequality. If inequality is a simple function of educational attainment, then the economy remains a relative meritocracy, and reversing the trend is a simple matter of sending more people to school (though, as Matt does point out, that's easier said than done). If not, then it's a function of any number of forces, ranging from globalization to tax rates to corporate culture, that speak to deeper inequities in our economy, and might require more direct government intervention. This is why lots of conservatives are invested in the education explanation, and Bush says things like, "The reason [for inequality] is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education," and David Brooks writes columns that pin inequality entirely on "the education gap." Everyone, after all, can agree on more education (it's just hard to implement). But not everyone can agree on higher tax rates. And what does the evidence show? Well, the gap in education is a problem, to be sure, but it's been a long time since it was a plausible driver of the increase in inequality. That's not to say going to college won't increase your income. It will. But the two are different questions. 
