It seems that the main issue is that people are only now discovering that PhDs and perhaps sometimes undergrad degrees in humanities are not vocational. This is

It seems that the main issue is that people are only now discovering that PhDs and perhaps sometimes undergrad degrees in humanities are not vocational. This isn't to say they aren't worthwhile or that students shouldn't pursue them. There are plenty of degrees or experiences that are unlikely to be marketable in the future economy. The main thing students must learn is how to learn, and one can accomplish this by studying a variety of fields. It does, however, mean that subsidizing higher education is a risky proposition. Universities go to great lengths to create humanities requirements perhaps in part motivated by a genuine belief that core requirements are necessary for a proper education, but likely also to beef up departments that have been isolated from market pressures. These departments are often political (almost always liberal), ideological, and rarely subject to any kind of quality control (there was the famous case of Larry Summers questioning what exactly Cornell West was doing as a tenured Harvard professor). Subsidizing learning with no direct market rewards can be a very smart long term investment in human capital. We need history and literature to have the cognitive tools to innovate and to articulate ideas necessary for the Western world to exist. But on the other hand, it's a dangerous proposition to create a mini-industry where you pay people without a clear understanding of what they are doing and why.