Some of it had to do with NAFTA. If you want to good information check out some of the Ross Perot/Al Gore debates. In the end, Ross Perot ended up being the one who was right.
Quote from logikos:
However, our finest universities, those that educate and groom future CEOs, teach globalism, so maybe laying off hoards of U.S. workers don't bother them at all.
Quote from fkbsuhites:
Because the unamerican welfare collecting white republican trash hate the educated employed middle class.
The republican elite prefer the people to be illiterate and immoral like the tea-bagging and birther imbeciles.
Quote from aegis:
I have a degree and took all the bullshit econ courses in college. I understand perfectly how it's supposed to work "in theory".
You claim that "we keep the highest paying jobs here". I call bullshit. Engineering, accounting, and programming were once high paying jobs. Those can easily be outsourced. Those which can't be outsourced can easily be replaced with an H-1B who lives with 20 of his relatives, thus his cost of housing is substantially lower as well.
I'm not really sure which "high paying jobs" you are referring to. If it isn't related to the healthcare profession, it can be outsourced.
Quote from Misthos:
I'd say there are many reasons. One reason in particular involves the environment.
A long time ago, Larry Summers wrote a paper advocating moving industries that also produce high levels of pollution to third world/emerging countries. This would accomplish two goals - we don't have to deal with the pollution ourselves and it's cheaper to build a factory in a country with weaker environmental constraints. I'll look up the source - I do remember Chomsky quoting this in one of his books - he referenced the paper Larry Summers wrote - it was actually leaked and pissed off quite a few people.
Much of what we see today was on the drawing board so to speak, decades ago. Beginning with Nixon and Kissinger's visit to China almost 40 years ago. It's not as haphazard as you think. Are there unintended consequences? I think so.
He describes how the shift from locally produced goods to goods produced anywhere in the world could destroy the prosperous economies of the developed world that were built up over centuries. This will happen, according to him, because global free trade will create unbridgeable divide between the rich over the ordinary people.
The rich will stay rich by investing their capital into Multinational Companies. In order to compete and make profits, these companies will exploiting ever cheaper sources of labour in developing countries.
In the other hand, the ordinary people in developed countries will lose their jobs because the cost of their salaries are too expensive in a global economy that include 4 billion people wiling to work for "almost nothing".
Mr. Goldsmith not only lays out arguments against global free trade. He also gives his rationale for why industrial agriculture and nuclear power are bad ideas. While many see these three issues as defining visions of modern progress, Mr. Goldsmith, suggests that there is a dangerous "inversion of values" behind these three issues. Instead of measuring progress in term of mankind's well-being and social stability, our modern industrial society has made economic growth and the development of new technologies the key goals for society. This "inversion of values" is the root cause for modern problems such as urban slums and enviromental deterioration.
"Rising long-term unemployment, increasing violence, growing proverty in urban slums, environmental deterioration and a general realization that something fundamental has gone wrong..."