Participant |
University |
Vote |
Confidence |
Comment |
Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Daron Acemoglu | MIT | Agree | 9 |
But, importantly, it is not the only factor. The other three are: slower growth in the supply of skills; institutional changes; and trade. |
Bio/Vote History |
Alberto Alesina | Harvard | Strongly Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
Joseph Altonji | Yale | Strongly Agree | 9 |
There is a lot of evidence that technical change has favored more skilled workers over the past 3 decades -see background information here |
Bio/Vote History |
Alan Auerbach | Berkeley | Agree | 6 | Bio/Vote History | |
David Autor | MIT | Strongly Agree | 10 |
It's not the only factor. Two others: slowing supply of skilled workers, and (probably) distorted pay-setting at the very top. |
Bio/Vote History |
Katherine Baicker | Chicago | Agree | 4 | Bio/Vote History | |
Marianne Bertrand | Chicago | Strongly Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
Raj Chetty | Stanford | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
Judith Chevalier | Yale | Agree | 10 |
There are certainly many other factors, such as the tax code, etc. |
Bio/Vote History |
Janet Currie | Princeton | Strongly Agree | 2 |
Increasing demand for skill is an underlying factor driving increased inequality though institutional changes are also important. |
Bio/Vote History |
David Cutler | Harvard | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
Angus Deaton | Princeton | Strongly Agree | 10 |
I think there is excellent evidence on this, though it is also clear that much else is going on. Nor does the tech story imply benignity. |
Bio/Vote History |
Darrell Duffie | Stanford | Strongly Agree | 7 |
This partial explanation does not lessen the policy importance of addressing the downside effects, including loss of social cohesion. |
Bio/Vote History |
Aaron Edlin | Berkeley | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
Barry Eichengreen | Berkeley | Agree | 6 | Bio/Vote History | |
Ray Fair | Yale | Agree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
Pinelopi Goldberg | Yale | Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
Claudia Goldin | Harvard | Strongly Agree | 9 |
But that is only the demand side. The slowdown in the supply of these skill sets is just as important (or more). You need the SS side too. |
Bio/Vote History |
Austan Goolsbee | Chicago | Strongly Agree | 10 |
The data are pretty obvious that this is a key factor. Not the only one, but a very significant one. |
Bio/Vote History |
Michael Greenstone | Chicago | Agree | 5 |
Seems self-evident but technological change cannot be measured directly; is this a falsifiable hypothesis? what would Karl Popper say? |
Bio/Vote History |
Robert Hall | Stanford | Uncertain | 4 |
Managers and financial salesmen account for most of the earnings growth at the top end. Not clear that tech change is responsible. |
Bio/Vote History |
Bengt Holmström | MIT | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
Caroline Hoxby | Stanford | Agree | 8 |
It's likely that technological progress has favored high aptitude people. The evidence is only indirect,however: it's a residual explanation |
Bio/Vote History |
Kenneth Judd | Stanford | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
Anil Kashyap | Chicago | Agree | 7 |
Hard to quantify the exact contribution, but it is undoubtedly big. Also tricky in that it partially interacts with education and trade. |
Bio/Vote History |
Pete Klenow | Stanford | Strongly Agree | 10 | Bio/Vote History | |
Edward Lazear | Stanford | Agree | 7 |
The distribution has spread out at all relevant deciles. The question that remains is why the skill gap is not closing. |
Bio/Vote History |
Jonathan Levin | Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
William Nordhaus | Yale | Disagree | 5 |
Although this is a common view, the causal factors are too complex to untangle unambiguously. |
Bio/Vote History |
Maurice Obstfeld | Berkeley | Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
Cecilia Rouse | Princeton | Agree | 10 |
Although there is some evidence to the contrary, the nature of occupational change and returns to schooling suggest it's important. |
Bio/Vote History |
Emmanuel Saez | Berkeley | Uncertain | 8 |
Big debate on institutions vs. technology in labor economics. Technology is too narrow an explanation as it interacts with institutions. |
Bio/Vote History |
José Scheinkman | Columbia University | Agree | 6 | Bio/Vote History | |
Richard Schmalensee | MIT | Agree | 4 | Bio/Vote History | |
Hyun Song Shin | Princeton | Uncertain | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
James Stock | Harvard | Disagree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
Nancy Stokey | Chicago | Strongly Agree | 9 |
Investment-specific technical change together with capital-skill complementarity explains much of the increase in the skill premium. |
Bio/Vote History |
Richard Thaler | Chicago | Uncertain | 3 |
Compared to what? More than 1% have good tech skills. Education disparities and tax policies surely more important. |
Bio/Vote History |
Christopher Udry | Northwestern | Agree | 3 |
This is hard to quantify, but the limited evidence is supportive. |
Bio/Vote History |
Luigi Zingales | Chicago | Agree | 7 |
The statement is likely to be true but it does not address why the technology moved that way. |
Bio/Vote History |