If expenses fell at roughly the rate of wages things would be roughly-ok. But the costs of housing, healthcare, and higher education keep going up. Globalization has pushed down the cost of many manufactured goods for Americans but it's not an even trade if nice TVs go from $3000 to $800 while a year of college goes from $8000 to $16000. The cheap-ish stuff getting a lot cheaper can't quantitatively offset big middle class expenses getting even modestly bigger.

To be clear, I'm not saying that globalization is the cause of big-ticket items like healthcare getting more expensive. I am saying that globalization has not depressed big-ticket expenses along with the prices of manufactured goods and middle-class American wages. Many middle-class Americans are experiencing a real decline in material standard of living concomitant with globalization. If equilibration toward a happy new equilibrium takes decades, I don't think that political realities will permit the equilibration to take its own sweet time. Something will rupture first. Maybe it already has ruptured with the election of Trump.

It's not good that comments like this against the group think are voted down. I certainly do not want my wages to go down, and I am not sure yet that globalization is good in the long run. When equilibrium is reached, in a world with infinite resources and space we would all benefit this is true. But in our current situation there will be more demand for limited natural resources if everyone is living at the same standard which will in turn lower my standard as a US citizen.

The greater effect on non ultra wealthy people now is the distribution of the wealth at the top for what is currently the outsourcing class, but is quickly becoming the machine/AI owner class.

Wages rarely go down, they just replace you. I'm mixed about wages going down. It generally points to cost of computing and developing going down, so it may discourage holding traditional jobs down and encourage people to do more creative things because computing is cheaper.

"so it may discourage holding traditional jobs down and encourage people to do more creative things because computing is cheaper."

It's hard to do creative things when you have to work the gig economy all day to barely afford a cardboard box to sleep in at night.

This is quite objectively true. Take a 50% paycut but along with that also cut down the cost of living. Something like Germany today, wages are smaller than in US but the costs of living make their citizens happy(er).

Then there will be less wage discrepancy compared to China and co and jobs start coming back.

That's a lot easier said than done. I really have no influence on the cost of housing or food. So if I have a 50% pay cut, I'm probably not going to be able to live where I do.

I know, but it can start with bigger taxes on properties (and better zoning laws). People and investors should be stripped of the idea that buying a house provides a good return. Lowering the leverage when buying a house would also help push prices down. Foreign buyers should be taxed more to avoid speculators.

I don't think food is a problem though, western EU food prices are not smaller.

Add in our need to reduce carbon output, locally produced products will have some advantage.

The problem with this is people don't like to take a loss, they will never be OK with taking one. Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant, they wont' like it(the cause) and will rant and rave and possibly "do something about it"(the effect).

tldr; people don't like pay cuts, whether it benefits someone else or not.

"a 50% pay cut is still a fantastic wage (globally relative)."

I'm not interested in relative to global. I'm interested in relative to where I live. Cause, you know, that's where I have to pay rent and buy food.