rodgerd

Well, the positive spin would be that:
[list=1][*]You avoid paying a fortune in higher prices and taxes for levies and subsidies.[*]Things get made by the people who can do it best.[*]It spreads the wealth around. The poor get richer by doing the jobs the rich are too inefficient to do.[/list=1]

Problem is it never works out this way. After all, sneakers are all made in the same handful of factories, and cost perhaps 5% of their purchase price to manufacture. Yet the cost of Nike shoes hasn't gone down one red cent. The rest goes into the pockets of a handlful of people. So you don't see the benefit.

Powerful lobbyists keep trade barriers in place in many areas (eg agriculture) so while your high-paying IT job goes to India, your McJob is taxed to pay subsidies to rich landowners who then use tarrif and non-tarrif barriers to jack up the cost of the food you eat.

Taxes often end up staying where they are, spent on something else (eg invading other countries) or cuts don't actually apply evenly - and if they are targetted, they aren't targetted at the people affected by globalisation.

A constant refrain is to retrain, but most people and entities pushing globalisation stridently oppose government intervention (except in their favour), so taking the money of a billionaire who shipped your job to Mexico so you can go back to school and learn a new trade is labelled "theft", "class warfare", etc.

Finally, people in the countries where the job goes often have no say on things like pay rates. Unionisation is illegal, there are often facist governments (Burma, China, etc) who will have you taken out and shot, quite literally, for agitating for better terms and conditions. So there's actually a beggar thy neighbour effect - instead of the theoretical outcome where we all (India, China, etc) get to be rich, we all get to be poor.