One theme that emerged during the election was the narrative that the working class has been left behind in the new economy. There may be some truth to that assertion, although, even if it is true, there is no obvious solution.
There are many ways to analyze income distribution, all of which have their pros- and cons. For example, you could look at how much of the country's wealth is controlled by the top 5%. That, of course, does not tell you how the bottom 5% is doing relative to how they were doing before (or how they could be doing). If you look at the real wages (adjusted for inflation) of the lowest wage earners (20%), the picture begins to crystalize. That group experienced significant growth during the Clinton presidency (nearly 20%), but saw about half of those gains slide away during the Bush presidency (-10%). While the income trend reversed itself during the Obama presidency (+2.8%) it was not by enough to bring the group back to where they originally were. Put differently, the Obama administration was relatively good for the lowest wage earners, but not necessarily good enough to undue the prior income erosion.
The question now, of course, is whether the next four years will continue the growth trend, reverse it, or accelerate it.