Could you back that up with data? I'm curious to know by how much and how you reached that conclusion.
Globalism made the very poor in China/Mexico/etc. richer, created their middle class and it made the very rich in US/EU even richer at the cost of US/EU middle class.
Saying how that is irrelevant now because of automation just smells like new propaganda to replace the old one so that the rich can get richer and the rest of us arguing propaganda.
This may sound controversial but it's likely the only way forward for the US to compete with China long term. Trying to ostracize our neighbors and go it alone against a country 4x our size is not a geopolitically sound move.
Yeah the rust belt job loss is only temporary. They will come back any day now.
> We want manufacturing in mexico because we're connected by literal rail lines and can ship products back and forth far more readily and in an environmentally friendly way.
Yeah I'm sure those Mexico factories have all the environmental regulations that US/Canada does.
> This may sound controversial but it's likely the only way forward for the US to compete with China long term.
The US has given China it's growth. It has exported jobs and exported it's middle class along with it. It has also exported much of it's high tech advantage into China. All for the short term benefit of the investor class and it's billionaires. Competing with China could start by not giving away every advantage.
> Trying to ostracize our neighbors and go it alone against a country 4x our size is not a geopolitically sound move.
The only ostracizing I do is towards the billionaires who shape economic policy to their benefit and everyone else's expense.
To put it differently, if we have to go with outsourcing, China was a mistake and we should redirect as much of what was offshored as possible to Mexico.
Obviously the billionaire class needs to pay for what has been done. I'm absolutely not against that.
This point bears repeating until they finally take it into account when discussing inequality. It's honestly tiring to have to repeat this every time
Minor nitpick: I'd call it globalization, not globalism, as the latter has historically meant something else and currently means something terrible
The end-game is, of course, little need for labor at all. Like America China will have to face this and find some way to keep millions from starvation. And soon.