Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

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 economist 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!

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

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