> All of the non-technological reasons, to me, boil down to globalization.
I tend to agree that globalization plays a significant role. However several of the listed factors aren't directly related to globalization, and have more to do with US culture and domestic economic priorities:
I'm most familiar with this one, but I agree with your comment more generally
> (Goldin and Katz 2007)
This in particular is not a globalization issue. To the unfamiliar, the premise is that technology aids productivity for the highly educated, but replaces productivity for lower educated. Highly educated people will see higher wage growth as technology improves but lower education will correspond with fewer productive job opportunities. The group will become increasingly small at the same time, as more advanced technology begins to replace more complicated jobs. I don't think it was part of the paper, but you can think of it also in terms of what the singularity will look like as it happens (eventually no human is individually more productive because of technology, because the technology doesn't need the human).
Very little to do with Globalization, at least in the US where we have a relatively highly educated workforce.
I tend to agree that globalization plays a significant role. However several of the listed factors aren't directly related to globalization, and have more to do with US culture and domestic economic priorities:
"the race between education and technology"
"the ‘superstar effect’"
"market structure and monopoly power"
"capital accumulation"