Baumol's argument is that services will become relatively more expensive than goods, because productivity increases come faster in goods than services. This is

Baumol's argument is that services will become relatively more expensive than goods, because productivity increases come faster in goods than services. This is obviously true, so yes, the article presents it as an accepted fact because it is. We have hard data for labour productivity by sector, manufacturing output, manufacturing employment, etc. We know the number of hours that goes into making a car versus giving a haircut, and how those numbers have changed over the past 40 years. > Education costs have risen about 2.5x over the last 40 years, after adjusting for inflation. Has teacher pay risen 2.5x after adjusting for inflation? No, which makes it clear that Baumol's cost disease is not the only driver behind education costs. :)