This article highlights the real downside to progressive globalization and a major reason for the recent rise of populism (Trump, Brexit, etc). The populist message of "bringing back the good 'ol days" is an impossibility but the underlying economic frailty of large swaths of people is very real.
While typically a free market fan, I do believe the pendulum has swung too far towards globalism in the last couple of decades. In general, this has vastly improved the lives of millions of very poor families in developing nations - but at a significant cost to families like blue collar Americans, leaving millions feeling that they're being left behind by technological progress, foreign labor, and politics/media that increasingly focuses on the "glamorous" US coastal cities. This is a gross oversimplification of the myriad of intertwined issues but this is the general perception for a lot of people.
We'd better figure out how to address this perception and begin to work on tangible solutions soon or this type of violent response may only be the tip of the iceberg.
I'd say that globalization often causes losses for the poorest and gains for the richest, but that overall it increases the amount of wealth coming into the country.
Therefore ending globalization would help the poor at the expense of the rich, but you could also just take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Since globalization brings more money into the country overall there must be some level of redistributive taxation that makes globalization better than non-globalization.
Don't forget that there are gains to trade. It's not just redistributive; more people are making more stuff (aka creating wealth). The pie gets bigger. The risk is that some people's slice gets smaller, even in absolute terms.
Poor people who are still employed also gain from globalization, because their inputs become cheaper.
Above all, too high a rate of change is what causes dislocation and destroys lives, when large segments of the population are left without valuable skills.
Yes, but shrinking the pie means that finite resources such as housing (land) becomes cheaper. Even if my piece of pie gets smaller in absolute terms I might still be better off than before because the price of housing and domestic services have gone down.
Let's not forget that despite the improvement to the lives of the poorest people in the world, the gap between the richest and the poorest has never been greater.
The wealth in the world exists for everyone to have a decent life.
But as long as the middle class thinks the poor is their enemy, we will stagnate.
I am deeply pessimistic about the next 10-50 years. Historically, situations like this led to revolutions, and recalibrations. But when the problem is "I can't afford the newest iPhone", not "I can't afford a loaf of bread", people are not inspired to really demand change. I think everyone is too satiated and complacent, which is why Brexit and Trump happen and the US/UK will get worse before things get better.
Regarding inequalities within countries, things used to be bad that way in 1900-1920 with low taxes, then up to the 70s tax rates on the rich went up to 80 or 90%+ which reduced inequality and then that ended with Thatcher/Reagan being voted in but a high tax regime could be voted back in if people want it.
You compared the effects on "millions" of global poor vs. "millions" of poor americans, but there are order of magnitudes difference in the size of those groups. Arguably the gains to the former is also greater than the losses (the rural poor of south and east Asia gained food security, the stakes are not nearly that high for the American poor).
That's an interesting theory, but globalism is not the problem. The problem is that wealthy people aren't taxed as much as poor people. What the world needs is wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Check out the writings of Thomas Piketty, who has studied these issues at great length.
Thomas Piketty made some grand assumptions and shouldn't be considered to have all the answers despite what the media would have you think.
Your simple analysis might make the inequality metrics look better but seriously take a step back and think about all the things that are out of whack that could contribute to it.
Who's to say it's not all the debt that has been built up that siphons money from the poor to the rich? Increasing taxes don't make the poor people's lives any better even though it makes you feel good because you get to stick it to the rich.
I also have to wonder where you get the idea that anything in economics is 'hard data', the world is a complex system, it's very rare for a simple answer to work.
But a simple answer will sell books and be easy to promote by the media and politicians. That's why we always hear simple answers, not because they work.
While typically a free market fan, I do believe the pendulum has swung too far towards globalism in the last couple of decades. In general, this has vastly improved the lives of millions of very poor families in developing nations - but at a significant cost to families like blue collar Americans, leaving millions feeling that they're being left behind by technological progress, foreign labor, and politics/media that increasingly focuses on the "glamorous" US coastal cities. This is a gross oversimplification of the myriad of intertwined issues but this is the general perception for a lot of people.
We'd better figure out how to address this perception and begin to work on tangible solutions soon or this type of violent response may only be the tip of the iceberg.