But Mishel tells me that he thinks the above graph is just noise, as the widely ranging data points show. If you just know what skill level a given occupation requires, that's not enough to tell you how much it'll grow in the future. There's no evidence, the paper concludes, to blame technological growth for wage inequality. Political forces, like the stagnant minimum wage, de-unionization, trade liberalization, and deregulation of key industries, Mishel says, deserve the brunt of the blame.
Autor says this is specious reasoning. "The paper is, of course, attacking a caricature of my work," he told me over the phone. "I would never claim that technical change is the only thing that matter for the labor market. What that paper claims is that technical change is the only thing that doesn’t matter." The first problem, he says, is that "the graph looks like noise" isn't a substitute for statistical analysis. "That’s why we used statistical analysis," he says. "You can’t just draw data points and draw inferences."
Secondly, he argues that you should expect to see a wide range in where the occupations fall just due to measuring error. Just splitting people into occupations is a process rife with opportunities to miscode people, and thus produce strange estimates of occupations' average wages. "An occupation is not stamped on your forehead. It’s not in your DNA," Autor says. "There’s tremendous observation error there. All that contributes to making the thing noisy." That's why it's important, he argues, to look at overall trends, not individual data points.
Another key piece of evidence Mishel and his coauthors cite is the fact that most of the growth in inequality has happened within professions, not between them. If technical change is causing inequality, then it shouldn't cause inequality among plumbers, but between plumbers and, say, bankers. But Mishel finds that between-occupation inequality hasn't grown much since the 1989, leaving little room for explanations that rely on technological change:
Autor responds by pointing (a) again, that his contention isn't that technology explains all of the increase and (b) technological change could cause within-occupation inequality to increase. "[The paper] claims that everyone who works in an occupation is identical," he tells me. "It’s kind of risible, right? No one thinks that. We have secretaries now and we had secretaries 34 years ago, and they do very different things. They did a lot of filing and typing back then, but now they’re problem-solvers…The notion that there would be no [skill] variability within occupations is totally incorrect."
Mostly, Autor thinks this fight is a distraction. "Larry and people in that group hate technical change as an explanation of anything. My opinion about why they hate it that much is that it’s not amenable to policy," he speculates. "All these other things you can say, Congress can change this or that. You can’t say Congress could reshape the trajectory of technological change." But that's not a good enough reason, Autor thinks: "Your diagnosis of the cause of something should be independent of what you want to do about it."