The primary flap between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has brought fresh attention to an old Pennsylvania political question: Why do non-college voters often vote on social issues rather than economic ones?

One critical reason: They still don't have confidence that either party can do much to improve economic opportunities for them or their children.

This skepticism has a rough consistency with recent economic experience. Over three decades, economic inequality has grown and middle-class living standards have stagnated -- under presidents and governors of both major parties.

So, what can presidential candidates do to give non-college swing voters more reason to vote on economic issues?

A starting point might be to spend less time on the problem and more on the solution. It's now 16 years since Bill Clinton won Pennsylvania with the phrase "People are tired of working longer for less."

Empathy is good. Listening tours are good. But at some point it's no longer enough for the candidate to "feel your pain."

Candidates need to tell a more powerful story that suggests they know what to do about that pain. It doesn't have to be a blueprint -- policy details are not the basis for voters' decisions. But voters do want a sense of direction. They want the solutions on the same scale as the forces hammering down on the middle class.

What doesn't help are "micro solutions" unequal to the pressures increasing inequality. One of these is the call to eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and give tax incentives for companies that create jobs at home -- when wage gaps and exchange rates are more powerful drivers of globalization.

Changing tax policies must poll well because it keeps showing up election after election. But the danger in overselling weak solutions is that voters take away a deeper message: "These candidates don't have any solutions that WOULD make a difference."

Even some meaningful economic proposals that candidates endorse aren't going to impact middle-class voters. Indexing the minimum wage to inflation, for example, means that our lowest-paid workers get to stay as poor as they are now even while productivity continues to grow.

How does that help the family that needs a $15 per hour job to meet their basic needs? It doesn't.

And don't get me started on the vaporous debate about NAFTA. OK, both Democratic candidates now hate NAFTA and want a different approach to trade. But different how?

OK, you ask, so what should the candidates embrace? Fair question.

How about we require that critical jobs that serve the public good be paid at least $15 per hour so that we can attract and keep qualified and experienced workers in those jobs? Jobs such as early childhood teachers, caregivers of seniors and the disabled, and long-distance truck drivers.

As it stands, truck drivers' wages have slipped so low that many workers drive very long hours to keep up their income. This makes roads less safe and destroys drivers' health as well as their marriages.

A $15 per hour truck driver "safety wage" would help the trucking industry deal with a current driver shortage. It would promote a more dynamic trucking industry with competition based on quality and productivity not who can sweat the driver the most.

Other thoughts? We need to make it easier for unions to organize and then bargain for all of the workers in regional service industries such as hotels, building cleaning and retail.

In Las Vegas, hospitality jobs are middle class -- and workers receive a lot of high-quality training that improves service -- because the hotel union bargains for workers throughout the metro area. What happens in Vegas needs to spread across the country. This would make these service industries more productive by focusing competition on technology and top-notch customer service.

A last thought: How about linking future trade deals with domestic changes -- such as laws making it easier to form unions -- necessary to create a strong middle class in both the United States and low-wage trading partners such as Mexico and China? Those stronger labor laws can then be enforced through trade.

Just this would drive home the reality that, with different policies, we really can bring back the middle class. Call it the economics of hope.

But as long as Pennsylvania's non-college voters hear only the economics of hopelessness, many of them are going to vote based on social issues.