Or an Economics Journal, no? Isn't technology/education still by far the prevalent view?
Even a cynic couldn't have helped but feel piqued when sitting in "liberal" Boston at the American Economics Association, hearing the cream of "liberal" Harvard and MIT present *exactly* these silly explanations. In full mathematical regalia. (see papers by Lawrence Katz and by David Autor http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2006papers.html ) And no one batted an eye until Thomas Piketty put a chart up simply showing the actual numbers for a number of countries for 80 years that he had painfully stitched together from tax sources. These were stagering numbers that show the US in a full return to the 1920s that France, etc have simply avoided with no apparent ill effects and obviously the same sets of technologies. People then just chuckled at the neo-classics. But I bet next time most of them will be ready to believe again. Paul Michael P. and Jim D. write:
But you can't pick up the business press without reading that explanation. > even Krugman and Robert J. Gordon have given up on blaiming > skill-biased technical change.
