This is a collection of very short essays, but the brevity is a flaw: none of the pieces have the room to explore the issues they discuss with much depth or nuance. It is a good way to get a whirlwind tour of different ideas about the causes behind the rise in inequality and what can be done about it; but don't expect to come away with many well-developed insights. The pieces were of pretty uneven quality, but many contained interesting policy proposals I would like to look more into (i.e. greater unions, labor corporate ownership, job guarantee, and many others. A few of my favorite bits were:
-the content on the wealth tax, with pro arguments from Saez and Zucman and con arguments from Summers and Kopczuk. The book doesn't have the space for me to feel like I actually know which side is right (I lean con) with much confidence, but I enjoyed the discussion, particularly Kopczuk's support for VAT in the US.
-the two pieces on the "China Shock"-- I found the comparison between the US and Germany very helpful. I'm not sure how feasible the German model of skill retraining is for the US, but I was not familiar with the German success story before this.
-Philipe Aighon's piece on "Innovation and Inequality," which included what I believe to be a hugely important statistic about the relative advantage in innovation in US locales with greater inequality. The book has a lot of discussion of the causes of greater US inequality compared to the EU, but I think a, if not the, critical element of the comparison is how much the US advantage in innovation is attributable to differences in inequality. I really am not sure of the answer to this question, but would have liked to see more discussion of it than just the Aighon piece (which was great).
-the few different pieces on the best ways to expand the social safety net, especially Jason Furman's. Furman's emphasis on the dual goals of expanding the US safety net to include even greater child support and greater protection for the non-working poor seem right to me. Furman does his usually fantastic job of presenting what feels like the most relevant evidence on the question at hand.