I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I do think often protectionists or just those critical of globalism are often unfairly criticized because they don't like what the end result will be.

The way I've put it in conversation is this: while the equalization will balance out in many ways, pulling "third-world" countries up closer to "first-world" standards of living, the reality is it is highly likely that first-world standards will actually decrease... for the first time in quite a long time. Now, one can argue this is a good thing because we first-worlders are overconsumers, polluters, and many other reasons, but I don't think it's fair to hate on people wanting to protect their own standard of living.

I have theorized, perhaps wrongly, that this is part of the real, behind closed doors, push for brexit in the UK, especially seeing as currency is the great entangler and now that Europe are all on the Euro, the UK wants to get out before the Euro starts having major issues, and they probably saw that coming which is why they never left the pound. So ignoring the more unsavory reasons being touted for brexit, I think it shows a certain amount of people intuitively understand globalism might reduce their standard of living which is why we are seeing an increase in protectionism in much of the first-world.

Note: I hate the terms first-world and third-world... any better suggestions on that are welcome.

first world, second world and third world are cold war terms denoting aligned to the western nations, aligned to the soviet union, or basically unaligned.

you want "developed" and "developing."

I used to try to keep reminding people of this fact, but then gave up. Words change in meaning, and ‘third world’ as a term has reached critical mass and means ‘developing’ now, at least in the U.S.

Is there a term for undeveloped countries that aren't actually developing in any way? Do such countries exist? Is "developing" just an euphemism? Genuinely curious.

Globalization as it is now is purely a race to the bottom in terms of ecological damage and mistreatment, so balancing the wages out is a real problem.

There are models where you could still have uplift without those issues but they are not what we are doing.

You’ve been downvoted by others, but your assessment is correct.

Our trade deals exclude environmental, labour, and other non-goods protections. So As a result we end up with the race to the bottom that you mentioned.

The fix is trade agreements that enshrine protections for more than just the goods being produced.

The assessment is not correct. It’s not a race to the bottom so much as bringing the bottom up to current levels.

China is going to destroy their environment with or without incoming US capital. They will also continue to employ children, etc.

Globalization puts more demand on their system so their people get higher wages, better conditions, cleaner work environments, etc.

Competition for their labor pool and their environment in general means they don’t have to give it up under bad terms.

It is, but it is also leading to tremendous inequality. My monthly income is the same as the annual income of the teacher who taught me maths in school. I don't really think I offer enough value to society to be paid that much more.

You are paid more because you do offer enough value to compensate you for it.

The problem your math teacher has is that there are significantly more people qualified and willing to teach math at that level than there are people qualified to do your job.