Debunking The Digital Divide Analysis

The purpose of Robert J. Samuelson’s article “Debunking the Digital Divide” is to explain that the popular political slogan “digital divide” is not as true as many people have been lead to believe. The digital divide is a theory that suggests that the advancement of technology will create an even larger gap between the “rich” and the “poor”. The ability/inability to afford a computer will increase income inequality between the technology “haves” and “have nots”. In his article, Samuelson states that, “this argument is either untrue or widely exaggerated”, and for many different reasons. However, wages statics and the widening of the wage gap give economist reasons to speculate. Samuelson makes two main points in his article and examines a study

done by David Cord of the University of California, Berkley, and John d. Nardo of the University of Michigan, in order to prove that the “digital divide” is in fact shrinking and is not the cause of growth in the wage gap between high income families ($75,000 per year) and low income families ($15,000 to $24,999).
The first point Samuelson makes to prove his theory that the digital divide is shrinking is that computers are continuously becoming cheaper and easier for low income households to purchase.

With the decrease in cost, computers are becoming easier for low income families to own, and gain technological skills that they may have not once been able to acquire. “In 1997 only 37 percent of households with incomes from $15,000 to $24,999 used computers at home or at work,” says Samuelson. That number grew to 47 percent in just four years, while during the same years; usage among families with incomes over $75,000 rose only 7 percent, from 81 percent to 88 percent. A fear that came from the idea of the digital divide was that low wage earners would not be able to purchase a computer or gain the computer skills needed to be competitive in the job market and their children would also suffer from a disadvantage. Samuelson’s data shows otherwise, the amount of computers in homes is actually greater among lower earners than higher earners. Also, as of 2000 most public school systems were connected to the internet with one computer for every four children, giving students that may not have a computer at home the opportunity to gain basic computer

knowledge.
While it may be true that the amount of computers used in the homes and work places of people in the lower income bracket did increase more than the growth that we see with the higher income households, there is still a huge different in there percentages. With only 47 percent of low income earners having a home/work computer and 88 percent of high income earners’ having a computer shows that computers are still too expensive for people in the lowest tax bracket. Until computers are cheap enough for everyone to be able to afford, no matter what income level, high earners will always have more access to computers and therefore have the ability to gain skills and knowledge with programs that could be beneficial to an employer. I believe integrating computers into the public school system, and teaching students the skills they may need in the future is a great way to level the playing field between children from high and low income families, and is a be step to providing equal opportunities to all.
The second point Samuelson makes to discredit the digital divide theory is that he believes computers are becoming easier to use. With computers becoming easier to use, they require less training and a lower skill set. Lower skilled workers can learn computer programs very quickly and with minimal training cost. Samuelson says, “point and click technology allows computers to be adopted to many business and home uses without requiring people to become computer experts.” Another scare the “digital divide” posed was that computerization would automate many of the routine tasks that many low skilled workers did on a daily basis and that would reduce the need for the low skilled worker, leading to a decrease in wages among them. At the same time, the need for highly skilled people to create, maintain, and operate these, sometimes complicated programs would increase the wages of those with these computer skills. As I talked about early, the number of home/office computers that lower income workers had grew by 10 percent from 1997-2001, I think this shows the routine jobs that low skilled workers had did not vanish but instead were transferred from pencil and paper to digital. Jobs and workers both are constantly evolving and will continue to do so, the study done by Professors Cord and Nardo help to prove this.
The Study done by the two professors’ claims that, “computers have significantly worsened wage equality.” This is based on the idea that building, programing, and other such computer related jobs raise the demand for highly skilled workers which increases their wages and provides more jobs for more skilled and higher educated workers.

At the same time, the professors’ claim “computerization- by automating routine tasks” will reduce the need for workers with low skills and limit the number of jobs available to them. With the wages of highly skilled workers increasing, and the wages of lower-skilled workers decreasing, the gap between the “rich” and the “poor” will grow and statistics prove that the gap has increased since computers have become more depended

on.
“In 1999, the first (90th percentile) earned $26.05 an hour and the second (10th percentile), $6.05 an hour, reports the Economic Policy Institute in Washington”, states Samuelson in his article. Although the ratio between high earners and low did grow from 3.7 in 1980 to 4.3 in 1999, the two professors have trouble blaming computers for the worsening of wage inequality that took place mostly in the early 1980’s. Many factors can affect the wage gap so proving that the increase was caused by the growing number of computers is almost impossible. The professors found that in 1986, “The ratio of the high-to-low paid workers was 4.3- the same as in 1999.” Between 1986 and 1999 computer usage increase significantly, so according to the digital divide theory the wage gap should have as well.
From computers becoming cheaper and easier to use, to the fact that there are more computers accessible for kids in the public school system, Samuelson believes that the digital divide is shrinking and I tend to agree with him. The advancement of computers should not be to blame for the increase in wage inequality, but maybe the failure of the low skilled American worker to advance with the evolving job market should. The opportunity for workers of lower income levels, and their children, to gain computer skills and other such knowledge that will help them advance their careers and lives is there, and needs to be taken advantage of. If the “Digital Divide” has not yet be deemed a phrase of the past I believe it will continue to shrink until it is.