Unfortunately, I don't think the lesson was learned, because people mostly just demonize the displaced workers by calling them racists, bigots, and nazis so that they don't have to confront the fact that the magnifying lens of creative destruction might fry them next -- and their families and friends and children and town and any adjacent industry they might attempt to flee to.
On one hand, that's such a terrifying prospect that it's hard to blame people for wanting to avoid the thought of it, but on the other, we really, really need to find a way to address this, because it's a recurring theme that at best won't go away and at worst... well, I don't want to think about that either.
Globalization wasn't really why they lost their jobs. The old jobs left, but they could have had new jobs if we had something resembling an industrial strategy and a progressive monetary policy.
We underinvested in literally every job-creating public good from education to infrastructure since the Reagan era. We decided we could make up for it by putting working people in debt and slashing taxes on unearned (investment) income until it asymptotically approaches zero. Any time the economy gets hot enough that wages might rise, the Fed starts screeching about inflation and hits the brakes on the economy. We've gone out of our way to make sure that people who need to work for a living be as desperate as possible.
A better approach would be to simply establish a favorable business climate and leave it up to the free market. Help the displaced workers with income redistribution and subsidizing training.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-the...
Do we just let citizens in our society starve because rich people didn't need them?
It's entirely incidental to the subject at hand, but I disagree:
https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-...
> We underinvested in literally every job-creating public good from education to infrastructure
Absolutely true, and there are massive marginal gains to be had by increasing our investments in education and infrastructure at this moment, but it's important to acknowledge that in the limit of appropriately high funding, education does not guarantee the existence of satisfactory jobs for everyone.
But the part about conjuring up new jobs out of thin air - that's probably never gonna happen.
With advancing automation, there will never again be as much demand for 'labor' as historically. We've been in a bubble where industrialization still had a need for somebody at the switch. But that's ending, and for good.
In the easily-forseen future, there will be diminishing use for labor. All those with only labor to bring to the marketplace (i.e. most of us without access to capital or goods), there will be no place in our capitalist system as it stands.
You sure? Globalization vs robots is entirely incidental to the fact that jobs regularly disappear en masse and we deal very poorly with that as a society, but I disagree that it was obviously robots and not globalization:
https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-...
Witness: factories come back to America, but only once scale increases (or automation gets cheaper) to the point robots are even cheaper than India or China. The returned factories have no labor jobs - its all robots.
So ok, its all the same effect - nobody is going to pay a living wage for labor any more.
The Luddite movement for instance wasn't a group of people against technology in general. They we're against being put out on the street to starve while factory owners got rich because new machines were invented. That sort of rioting and destruction can easily happen again if we take a "tough shit" attitude to people who lose their jobs en masse to technological improvements