The whole idea came from what if one of these broad economic disciplines actually worked? Especially marxism, objectivism, and such. As the article mentions, these use economics broadly to explain history... and predict it.

"Psychohistories" are compelling, interesting and intellectually engaging. We have a tendency of adopting them though. That's the problem. They aren't scientific. They aren't even theories in a popperian sense. Ultimately, it's punditry. A perspective. I enjoy it. I enjoyed this article. It's neither true or false though, in any kind of global sense.

All that said, this take augments the (also economist friendly) "anywheres vs everywheres" take on Brexit. That take also had to do with an increase in uni graduates.

A narrower version of Turchin's concept might also be true. Rather than a surplus of (all) graduates crowding the top... this might be an issue of very specific surpluses. EG Journalism, specific government agencies, professorships, political positions... Those are a tiny portion of people overall, but highly influential to the political mood. If most journalists, academics, political aids are competing for a limited pool of jobs... These professions really are tense. Most people who want to can't get a job in these fields. Many want to. There's often no fallback. If you're a journalist/activist/campaigner type... you're either in that insider group or you have nothing. Academics is similar. A phd historian can either be a professor or very little else. No consolation prizes.