The charts above are from the IGM Forum, and represent the views of this nation's economic experts. Note that only 5% of the economists believe that Trump plan will help the middle class, and only 2% believe it will help low-skilled workers. Meanwhile, about 67% believe it won't help the middle class and 60% say it won't help low-skilled workers.
This shows that many Trump voters, especially in the rust-belt states, didn't understand what they were doing when voting for Trump. They accepted his claims that he would improve the economy and create millions of jobs. But economists that have looked at his plans disagree.
This backs up what Justin Wolfers found when he attended an annual meeting of economists in Chicago last weekend. He wrote in the New York Times:
If the November election was intended as a rejection of elites, of expertise and of the sort of technocratic advice that economists often give, it’s a punch that has landed. In somber analyses, huddled hallway conversations and pointed asides during endless panel sessions at the annual conference of economists last weekend in Chicago, the major theme was a sense of anxiety about the incoming Trump administration. This foreboding was evident in roughly equal measure among conservative and liberal economists. But it is in direct contrast with the feelings of small-business owners and Wall Street traders. Most of my fellow economists remain convinced that university-trained economists can offer useful insight to the new administration. Few believe it will matter. The life force that animates the econ tribe — that what they’re doing matters — has been drained away. Few see useful channels for influence. Partly this reflects President-elect Donald J. Trump’s legislative plans. On issues like restricting trade, directly intervening to assist specific industries or corporations, targeting tax cuts to the wealthy, his agenda stands as a rejection of the advice that mainstream economist have typically offered. And partly this reflects Mr. Trump’s appointments. Few of his key economic advisers have any economics training, and the only official who identifies as an economist — Peter Navarro, who earned a Harvard Ph.D. in economics and will head up the newly formed National Trade Council — stands so far outside the mainstream that he endorses few of the key tenets of the profession. Concern about the role of economic advice translated into concern about the economy. Over three days of intense discussions, I didn’t encounter a single economist who expressed optimism that Mr. Trump’s administration would be good for the economy. The optimists were those who thought Mr. Trump would not have the energy to actually implement his agenda; the pessimists’ thoughts veered toward disaster.
