Over the last three or four decades, income inequality has increased in most developed countries. In the United States, many people have blamed this trend on the political influence of “the rich” and have argued that reversing the increase in inequality should be a public policy priority. However, this apportionment of blame is wrong, and the resulting policy prescriptions ignore more important problems.

A common explanation for this increase in income inequality is that the wealthiest 1 percent has become a plutocracy that uses the federal government to enrich itself at the expense of the rest of society. There are two frequently repeated arguments used to defend this explanation. First, the plutocrats have managed to increase their incomes by paying lower taxes. Second, the plutocrats have convinced Republican presidents to manipulate the economy to their own benefit. Both of these arguments are seriously lacking.

The first argument is easily dismissed by examining data published by the Congressional Budget Office. Yes, the top marginal income tax rate is lower today than it was 40 years ago, but the increase in inequality over this period is overwhelmingly due to changes in pre-tax incomes, not changes in the amount of taxes paid. Changes in the federal tax code over the last 30 years can account for less than one-eighth of the increase in post-tax income inequality over that same period. Contrary to popular perception, the federal tax code is quite progressive, and it is about as progressive today as it was 30 years ago, according to the CBO.

The second argument, which was popularized by Vanderbilt political scientist Larry Bartels, proceeds as follows: In the period after World War II, economic growth has been, on average, higher under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents. Because faster economic growth has historically coincided with slower growth in income inequality, this means that income inequality has actually increased faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic presidents. One cannot reasonably interpret the relationship between a president’s party affiliation and short-run economic fluctuations as causal — the short-run ups and downs of the post-war American economy have primarily been due to actions of the Federal Reserve and other forces outside of a president’s control. In reality, the increases in income inequality seen throughout the developed world are primarily due to technological change and globalization. Put simply, changes in the nature of the world economy have been advantageous to certain highly-skilled individuals. Here in the U.S., the effects of these changes have been compounded by the poor academic results produced by many public schools.

And there’s the rub: By focusing the blame on the richest 1 percent, the left is ignoring a far larger problem — increases in income inequalities between groups with different education levels. In 1979, the median hourly wage for college graduates was about 30 percent higher than the median wage for high school graduates, according to data from the CBO. Today, the median wage for college graduates is about 70 percent higher. Thus, it has become much harder for Americans without a college education to get ahead.

It wasn’t that the education system of yesteryear was significantly better than today’s. Rather, 50 years ago, you didn’t really need much education in order to get a middle-class job in manufacturing or a similar field. However, those kinds of jobs are disappearing, and the public education system has proven unable to prepare a significant minority of American students with the skills needed to succeed today. To be brutally honest, I am not concerned about whether a typical hedge fund manager makes one or two million dollars per year. However, I do find it profoundly unjust that many disadvantaged schoolchildren simply are not given the opportunity to succeed.

It’s easy to understand why many on the left would ideologically prefer a story about plutocrats than one about inevitable technological change and a failing public education system. But the former story ignores the real problem of opportunity inequalities, which cannot be addressed by merely raising taxes on “the 1 percent.” Instead, other policy changes — most importantly, education reform — will be needed to fix this problem. In short, let’s stop focusing on the rich and instead focus on improving opportunities for our most disadvantaged young citizens.