Krusell et al. in [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] analyzed the capital–skill complementarity hypothesis as an explanation for the behavior of the US skill premium. We refit Krusell et al.'s [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] model with two alternative capital equipment price series: One proposed by Greenwood et al. [Greenwood, J., Hercowitz, Z., Krusell, P., 1997. Long-run implications of investment-specific technological change. Amer. Econ. Rev. 87 (3), 342–362] and the official, revised National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) data. We find that capital–skill complementarity is preserved, but other results were sensitive to the data used. Specifically, the fit of the model was similar to Krusell et al.'s [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] using the NIPA data, but not the Greenwood et al. [Greenwood, J., Hercowitz, Z., Krusell, P., 1997. Long-run implications of investment-specific technological change. Amer. Econ. Rev. 87 (3), 342–362] data. Also, both series produce estimates of the elasticity of substitution between unskilled labor and equipment that are substantially larger than Krusell et al.'s [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] estimates.
