The economics of the 2016 voter backlash

A wave of popular dissatisfaction, expressed in support for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, shocked both of America’s leading political parties. The protest vote, however, shouldn’t come as a surprise: For many important demographic groups, the past two presidencies have been an economic disaster.

If you’re wondering why Trump’s anti-establishment rhetoric has attracted so many white male fans, consider this: From 2000 to 2014, a period during which the U.S. had two two-term presidents representing each of the major parties, the median white male’s income declined an inflation-adjusted 5 percent. White females saw a 5 percent increase over the same period – still hardly outstanding, especially compared with the large income gains that both groups enjoyed from 1992 to 2000 under President Bill Clinton.

Black Americans fared even worse. From 2000 to 2014, the median black woman’s income fell by nearly 5 percent, and the median black man’s income decreased by nearly 10 percent (also adjusted for inflation). The decline could prove highly persistent, given the lack of progress in improving education for this group: From 2000 to 2015, the fraction of African- American men ages 25 to 29 with a college degree has remained essentially unchanged at about 1 in 6, compared with nearly 1 in 2 for their white female counterparts.

Given the economic disparities, what’s truly surprising is that more African-Americans in the Democratic primaries didn’t turn away from (the very mainstream) Hillary Clinton to Sanders, or to some other non-mainstream candidate who was more sharply focused on their economic problems.

So why weren’t the ruling elites in Washington more prepared for a backlash? Perhaps they weren’t paying enough attention to truly middle-income folks.

From across all the demographic groups mentioned above, the percentage earning more (adjusted for inflation) actually increased even as median income fell in most groups. This means that the economic pain has been concentrated among people who earn considerably less than six figures – a group with which political operators in the Beltway rarely come into contact.

To turn this economic performance around, policymakers must make choices that are designed to lead to a lot more economic growth.

In their convention speeches, Clinton and Trump did not use the word “growth” even once. Let us hope they will rectify that shortcoming soon.

This story was originally published August 6, 2016 at 12:02 AM with the headline "The economics of the 2016 voter backlash."