Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.

Tim Noah is doing a long series of articles in Slate about the growth of income inequality in the United States, and the first part after the introduction is titled “The Usual Suspects Are Innocent.” Actually, that could stand in for parts two and three as well. Gender and racial gaps don’t explain it. Immigration doesn’t explain it. And the explanation most beloved of wonks and libertarians worldwide, skill-biased technological change, doesn’t explain it either. SBTC theory, roughly, says that over the past few decades the world has become more complex and therefore rewards education and smarts more than it used to. Thus, there’s relatively more income going to the highly skilled and relatively less going to the unskilled and semi-skilled. There are several reasons to think that SBTC doesn’t actually explain an awful lot, but the simplest is this concession from MIT economistĀ David Autor:

Autor readily concedes that computer-driven job polarization can’t possibly explain the entire trend toward income inequality in the United States, because income inequality is much greater in the United States than it is in Europe.

Hmmm. Yes. They have computers and electricity and cell phones in lots of countries, but not every country has seen vast increases in income inequality. The chart on the right is from Winner-Take-All Politics, by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, and it shows the share of national income that goes to the top one-percent in various countries. In the United States it’s doubled since 1973. In France, Germany, and Japan it’s barely budged. But those other three countries are all as technologically advanced as we are. So what gives?

More about that later. Tomorrow morning, in fact. And of course, Tim Noah’s series will continue through next week, so we’ll see what he decides to finger as the main culprit. Stay tuned!

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be doneā€”that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate