International Finance Discussion Papers (IFDP)
August 2026
Occupational Complexity, Capital-Skill Complementarity, and the Evolution of U.S. Wage Inequality: A Quantitative Analysis
Colin Caines, Florian Hoffmann, Gueorgui Kambourov
Abstract:
We document a strong, positive relationship between occupational problem complexity, measured from US data on problem-solving requirements, and occupational wage growth since 1980. In contrast, employment shifts toward more complex occupations have been modest, suggesting a race between the demand for and supply of complex skills. We rationalize these findings by formulating and structurally estimating a quantitative general equilibrium model on the granular occupational level. In our model, workers have heterogeneous comparative advantages in solving complex problems and physical capital admits capital-skill complementarity in occupation space. The equilibrium features Positive Assortative Matching of worker skills to occupational problem complexity, and the model quantitatively explains the evolution of the occupational wage- and employment structure over the last four decades. The model estimates uncover two distinct periods of technological change. Until around 2000, rising complexity premia were driven by capital-skill complementarity and declining equipment capital prices. Post-2000 patterns reflect supply-side technological change whereby occupations became more efficient in utilizing worker skills for complex problem-solving. Our framework helps unify distinct approaches to studying task automation and task augmentation on the one hand and skill-biased technological change on the other.
Keywords: Occupational Task Content; Complex Tasks; Wage Polarization; Skills
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17016/IFDP.2026.1443
PDF: Full Paper
Disclaimer: The economic research that is linked from this page represents the views of the authors and does not indicate concurrence either by other members of the Board's staff or by the Board of Governors. The economic research and their conclusions are often preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The Board values having a staff that conducts research on a wide range of economic topics and that explores a diverse array of perspectives on those topics. The resulting conversations in academia, the economic policy community, and the broader public are important to sharpening our collective thinking.