While education tells us a great deal about growing inequality, I strongly question the thesis that it tells the whole story. Economists Jared Bernstein and Larry Mishel raise some excellent points when they argue:

"Wage inequality is driven by a slew of factors, of which differences in education is but one. More recently, in the 2000s, the evidence shows no evidence of increasing skill demands, or at least no evidence that these demands are not being met by enough skilled workers. Instead, in recent years, it appears the inequality has largely been driven by increased concentration of income and wealth at the very top of the scale. The current inequality is much more than a simple skills story-persons like CEOs and holders of large capital assets hold a privileged position that has enabled them to steer the bulk of growth their way.

Sure, many of these persons have college degrees, but as our and others’ data show, a college degree, even an advanced degree, does not guarantee entry in this rarified club (see, for example, our analysis of recent inequality trends). In fact, our own research shows that half of the growth in wage inequality over the 1980s, and most of the growth in the 2000s, occurred within education groups, meaning that inequality’s growth is currently being driven by the gains of some college graduates relative to others with the same education credentials.

Policy makers and analysts must avoid reducing the inequality debate to a sole explanation regarding education. For any individual making a decision about their future, and for any society contemplating useful investments, education is an obvious and important area to consider. But it is not solely responsible for the growth of inequality, not over the longer term, and especially not in recent years. Thus, other policies-minimum wages, a level playing field for union organizing, health care and pension provision, work supports for low-income workers, full employment, and responding to the downsides of globalization-also need to be pursued."

Amy,

Thanks for weighing in. I actually think the Bernstein/Mishel and Katz/Goldin theses are not entirely incompatible. Or to put it differently, there is a productive tension worth exploring that could help progressives develop a sharper position on the economic implications of a well-educated, highly empowered labor force today. Historically, Katz/Goldin show, educated laborers have been more likely to earn higher wages, perform higher-quality jobs, and organize and bargain on their own behalf. Of course, critical thinking skills alone do not limit corporate power, but they do help. While unions increase the bargaining-power of the lower-educated, more education puts aspiring middle-class workers on the path toward social mobility and job security. Pushing for stronger unions and stronger schools should thus be part of the same policy agenda.

We’ve lost ground since the 1970s that needs to be recovered. Here Katz/Goldin are closer to Bernstein/Mishel. In the early 1970s, they write, many unions whose members did not have college degrees had “wage contracts that were fully indexed to inflation and geared to provide real wage increases that tracked expected and national productivity growth. Union settlements in the late 1970s were not yet adjusted to slower productivity growth and, in consequence, they led to a relative increase in the wages of non-college workers.” But things quickly worsened for lower-educated workers in the 1980s under Reagan, they acknowledge—the power of unions severely declined, as did the real value of the federal minimum wage. Better employment prospects for struggling workers today require better education and better workplace organization, among other things.

Dan, I question two things in your description of American education history. First, you say that the rise of secondary education in the first half of the 20th century was based on grassroots development; didn't the federal government in fact mandate free universal public education?

And second, the point that "Educational change between the generations then came to an abrupt standstill" is not true. Education levels are still increasing - for instance, the percentage of adult Americans with college degrees rose from 11 in 1970 to 24 in 2004. The difference is that they're increasing more slowly, especially when compared with European and East Asian education levels. Part of what made the US by far the richest country in the world in the 1950s is that its education system was better and more accessible than that of any other country. Since then, the US has improved, but first Europe and then East Asia improved much faster.

In the US, college costs an average of $4,000 per year, in Germany €1,000. In the US, the most prestigious public universities (Berkeley and UCLA) cost $9,000 a year in-state and $25,000 out of state; in France, they cost €1,400. Needless to say, France and Germany are more socially mobile than the US. The one country in Europe that isn't, Britain, is the one where the best universities have the same astronomical tuition as in the US.

Alon,

I would expect nothing less from you. Let me address your concerns seriatim.

1. The federal government mandated universal education on a mass scale *only* after mobilization and pressure from below. You simply can't bracket the grassroots on this.

2. The pace of educational attainment can change even as more people are educated.
The supply of skill has gone through vicissitudes over the years. But Katz and Goldin (remember: I'm rehearsing *their* views) do make a detailed case for a more recent educational slowdown occurring in tandem with lagging productivity and wage premiums.

3. The US education system was for a long time the best of any industrialized nation. The historical facts are unambiguous here, and on this we agree. But it's important to understand where our educational greatness came from. Top-down bureaucratic policy? Wrong answer! It was ordinary people who worked together to make it great and less elitist than the European model. Here's the relevant Katz/Goldin passage for you:

"The public high school was recreated in the early 1900s to be a quintessentially American institution: open, forgiving, gender neutral, practical but academic, universal, and often egalitarian. It was reinvented in a way that moved it away from its nineteenth-century elitist European origins." You may want to read the book...!

There are still high paying jobs on certain job sites. Here's the 3 best chosen by About.com career editor -

www.linkedin.com (professional networking)
www.careerbuilder.com (keyword job search)
www.realmatch.com (matches jobs based on skills)

good luck to those looking.

Dan, I'll definitely look for that book in the stores around here.