Clinton’s epic failure is an economic problem started during G.W. Bush presidency

The latter events in the USA and other countries demonstrate that interaction between inhomogeneous and dynamic society and frozen and irresponsible establishment is not ideological or sacral. It is rather economic. No pure idea or even patriotic war can defend real economic loss for a bigger part of population.  People do perceive growing economic disparity, which is aslo seen in dry digits of economic reports. Here, I present one figure with two curves showing the degree of dramatic loss in the portion of personal income received by working people in the lower income range. First curve shows the portion of population (age 16 and above) with income as reported by the US Census Bureau and measured in the (March) Current Population Surveys (CPS). One can observe a longer period of healthy growth from the 1950s to the 1980s, mostly due to increasing female involvement.  The portion of economically active population reached approximately 92% in 1980 and then did not change over 20 years. In 2001, a gradual decline started and that trend has been observed ever since. Therefore, the portion of people without any reportable personal income has been increasing and these people cannot fall below the zero income line.  They have nothing to lose. This fall in the portion of people without personal income is not directly related to actions of any specific authority. It is a result of secular oscillation or Kondratiev wave, as described in one of my previous posts. 

Second curve is more illustrative. The portion of CPS income in the GDP (or Gross Domestic Income – GDI = GDP) reached 68.4% in 1980. More important is that it does not show strong dependence on the growing portion of people with income before 1980. Data before 1967 are absent and we cannot make a better quantitative comparison between the portion of people with income and their share in the GDP for the whole period between 1950 and 1980. Between 1980 and 2000, the portion of income was on a gradual decline down to 64.5%, or by 4 % per 20 years. Since 2000, lets call is the Bush era, the portion of CPS income, which is mostly wages and salaries of employed people, has been falling very fast and reached 55%  (!) in 2009. In 2015, the portion of population with income was 55%, i.e. it returned to the worst year of the economic depression after a short recovery.

Considering the overall fall in personal income for a bigger portion of population with smallest incomes one can mark a link between the epic failure of Clinton in the past presidential elections and the overall perception of economic disparity which contradicts the overall rhetoric of the American establishment. Then somebody speaks in the media about potential economic loss poor people are happy with such a perspective because they have less to lose and the level of economic disparity may decrease when the rich and richest really lose their money. From the point of view of economic inequality, the Clinton’s failure might be perceived as deserved for the supportive establishment, and thus, positive. The current establishment has failed to understand real social and economic processes and has to be removed together with its logistic support like think tanks, economic and social departments, and the mass media. They demonstrate linear thinking (tomorrow as today) and broad absence in understanding of actual processes.  

I have compared the list of states for Clinton and the list of riches states in terms of average income per capita. They coincide by more than 80%. This does not prove the link between falling personal income and the degradation of the current establishment. But it is indicative.

Brexit likely had the same economic root. Other developed countries have to be aware of potential problems related to the side effect of Kondratiev wave and the growing income inequality. We are close to the middle of negative period in economic activity and the hardest time is likely five to ten years ahead of us.