> Workers with an abundance of non-cognitive skill were increasingly sorted into occupations that were intensive in: cognitive skill; as well as abstract, non-routine, social, non-automatable and offshorable tasks. Such occupations were also the types of occupations which saw greater increases in the relative return to non-cognitive skill.

Isn't this a contradiction? "Increasingly sorted into occupations that were intensive in cognitive skill" and simultaneously "greater increases in the relative return to non-cognitive skill"? So are we just saying they saw the heaviest rise in skills in general?

I didn't read past the abstract, maybe the body is clearer.