That's a valid observation.
Another Observation: A Republican President trying to incentivize American companies to hire locally and generate working-class jobs (something the dems should be cheering?). It seems that since the 90s(at least) both parties catered to non-working-class concerns.
"Catering to non-working-class concerns" tends to be the net effect, even when they claim to be catering to working-class concerns. Employers get the big tax incentives and sometimes cash grants. Prices to consumers may hold steady (do they ever drop?), while working class wages stagnate or fall. When things trickle down, most of the gains stay at the top.
It's a game both parties play. The thing is, "good for jobs" often doesn't result in as many jobs as promised. Businesses have to do what's best in their own self-interest. If automation/mechanization is cheaper, it must be done. If skilled labor can be eliminated in favor of cheaper semi-skilled labor, it must be done. If the economy is soft, layoffs.
When Southern states (with very Republican leadership) dangled tax breaks to automakers and other Northern industries, the jobs didn't move from Japan, they moved from elsewhere in the US. Those relocated jobs typically paid lower wages than had been paid up North (Republican-passed right-to-work laws helped with that), in factories that were generally more automated than those they replaced. While that brought growth to those states, it meant shrinkage elsewhere in these so-called united states.
Today, the "business is better" mantra also leads to outsourcing of government jobs. Almost invariably, the result is lower wages and fewer jobs. Why? The fastest path to business "efficiency" is by reducing labor costs - "management" of wage and benefit costs, and increased automation. If business is going to underbid government's current cost and still earn a profit, how else can it be done? This is not rocket science.
So we have a President who speaks to the white working class in a voice that sounds like theirs, but what has the net effect been? Have jobs actually been saved, or have they just been shuffled from one town to another? Have wages risen? No. When wages stagnate in the face of record-low unemployment, there's something else going on. If employees and prospective employees felt they could demand better wages and jobs, they would. Employers are better than ever before at keeping employees and prospective employees on the defensive. Though unemployment among those actively seeking work ls very low, there's an underlying suspicion that structural unemployment is very high. Fear of joining the structurally unemployed contributes to wage stagnation (as does the fear that the next job will pay worse than the current job). Do we blame that structural unemployment entirely on the unemployed (sloth, lack of education, etc.), or do society and business as a whole bear some (or most) of the responsibility?
The only thing that will mitigate the "jobs" problem is true income redistribution. Higher wages in the hands of the 90%. Government spending on "wasteful" projects like carbon sequestration, infrastructure, parks, preventive healthcare, mental health, daycare centers, affordable housing... raise the quality of life for all. Feelings of well-being and security stimulate consumer spending, which flows right back to big business. The trick is that big business and investors can't keep it all, they need to recycle a larger proportion back into the economy in ways that aid the entire population, not just the ownership class. It doesn't matter whether the richest of the rich have $100 billion or $10 billion. Either way they and their descendants can't spend it all.
There's nothing wrong with income redistribution - it's always just a matter of which direction the money is flowing. We've had a long stretch where it has been flowing upward. It needs to flow in the other direction for a while. If we were truly wise (which we are not), we'd find that delicate balance point where everyone is comfortable.
