President Trump’s remarkable win in 2016 ushered in a wave of economic populism. Since that time, there’s been quite a scramble among political parties to create appealing economic opportunities for blue-collar workers.
And it’s clear they could use these opportunities. Data from the Federal Reserve shows that over the past four decades, median earnings for non-college-educated workers have dropped by 14%, in contrast to a 14% increase for those holding bachelor’s degrees or higher.
This imbalance paints a stark picture of opportunity in America, split along educational lines. Many non-university workers face a troubling trend of downward mobility, while highly educated individuals continue to ascend in their careers and lifestyles.
This growing divide is concerning, and it’s something populist voices across the political spectrum are eager to address. However, it seems they have been more successful at articulating their frustrations than in actually improving conditions for these workers.
Meanwhile, President Biden’s ambitious nearly $5 trillion public spending initiative aimed at revitalizing the economy in a “bottom-up and middle-out” approach is worth noting. Yet, many working families have expressed that this has coincided with rising living costs and diminishing purchasing power.
Though he was focused on inflation initially, Trump quickly shifted gears, initiating a global trade conflict that led to higher prices for consumers and businesses. This not only stifled economic growth but also resulted in retaliatory tariffs on American exports.
Trump recently took aim at Walmart for raising prices, suggesting that retailers should “absorb tariffs.” This is a luxury that isn’t available to countless small businesses that operate on thin margins.
The US economy, which enjoyed consistent growth for four years, has now seen a decline of 0.3% since Trump returned to office. Like Biden’s approach, the populism of the MAGA movement doesn’t seem to provide tangible benefits for working Americans. Both ideologies rely on questionable assumptions about the roots of economic issues.
Critics of trade deals and globalization point to job losses in manufacturing, overlooking broader structural changes impacting all advanced economies—like rising educational attainment, increased female workforce participation, a greater demand for services, and technological advances. Additionally, they tend to overstate the extent to which policies can reverse deindustrialization.
Trump’s tariffs on imports are meant to protect American businesses from foreign competition and encourage them to bring manufacturing jobs back home. However, the reality is that manufacturing jobs within the US have been nearly stable, with roughly 500,000 roles available.
The proportion of American workers employed in manufacturing has been steadily decreasing since the 1950s and now sits at about 8%. So, is it really wise to risk rising inflation or even a recession just to shift that percentage a bit?
Most Americans don’t seem too convinced by Trump’s vision of a “new golden age” dependent on protectionist policies. According to the Chicago Global Affairs Council, 84% believe global trade benefits their standard of living, while 79% think it’s good for the economy. Notably, 55%—including almost half of Republican respondents—favor a push for free trade, which is an increase from 34% in 2024.
In light of this, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Trump is trying to distance himself from his touted “beautiful” tariffs while looking for new trade arrangements with countries like Britain and China. Even as his form of right-wing economic populism falters, leftists are simultaneously pushing for their own version.
They view their expressiveness as a remedy against “neoliberalism,” which they associate with a relentless focus on free markets, global trade, and fiscal restraint, attributes that have characterized both major parties over the last four decades.
Populist advocates demand a departure from neoliberal policies. Ironically, Bidenomics has, in some ways, forgotten that we’ve already tried this approach. Early in his term, Biden was influenced by progressive economists advocating for a substantial $1.9 trillion stimulus package.
Biden has also endorsed industrial strategies to revitalize trade policies, maintaining some of Trump’s tariffs, trying to boost domestic manufacturing, and investing billions into clean energy and electric vehicles.
Additionally, his administration hired left-leaning academics to push for regulatory changes aimed at dissolving big tech monopolies. He has also proclaimed his commitment to support workers, even joining them on the picket line, claiming the title of the most pro-union president in history.
However, while Biden’s initiatives might bode well for investments in chip production and clean energy, much of his educational and infrastructure spending—including efforts to expand rural broadband—has yet to yield substantial improvements.
From January 2023 to January 2025, manufacturing jobs have actually fallen. And although there’s been a slight uptick in union membership under Biden, the overall share of unionized workers has dipped below 10% as the workforce continues to grow.
Bidenomics may have garnered support from progressive circles, yet many working-class voters, particularly in places like the Bronx, remain skeptical. They tend to view hefty government spending as a contributor to rising prices, feeling disconnected from what they believe is the Democratic Party’s failure to address their economic hardships.
Jonathan Cate of the Atlantic remarked that the attempts to create a populist economic framework aimed at reclaiming the working class have been largely unsuccessful, as real-world outcomes simply don’t match the promises.
Ultimately, non-college-educated Americans aren’t looking for a convoluted “solution” involving protectionism and endless deficit spending, which just complicates things further. They, like most, want straightforward economic stability and growth.
As both Biden and Trump put their populist strategies into action, it becomes evident that many working families aspire for an economy that evolves with their needs rather than one stuck in a bygone era.
Samuel Marshall is the president and founder of the Institute for Progressive Policy.
