Although we live in the age of disagreement (kali-yuga) our governments decided unanimously that globalization of the economies is the only solution for all the problems. Now, a couple of years later we find people ask this question about the impact that globalization in general and offshoring in particular have on US employment and income.

In fact the impact that globalization has, and will have, on the US economy continues to be one of the most debated economic issues of our time.

Economists, generally speaking, view such globalization as highly beneficial, based on the international benefits of free trade. At the opposite extreme, globalization is commonly opposed by workers in industries and at firms whose jobs are being transferred to foreign locations.

When the globalization movement started, the global players somehow expected that all of them would profit, people could buy things cheaper etc. However, it seems that this understanding is now gradually being scrutinized.

Job losses have become the primary metric in press and public discussions of offshoring. Economists, in contrast, generally believe that labor markets equilibrate rapidly, and that most workers who lose jobs to offshoring are soon re-employed, new kind of jobs are being invented.

For example, John F. Kennedy used jobs lost to automation as a major campaign issue in 1960, which led to legislation creating the Manpower Training Act.

Even now, as the offshoring of jobs to Asia continues, Asian entrepreneurs still indicate the US is a highly favored location to develop their newest ideas.

My personal assumption is that presently the dynamics of globalization has gotten out of control and the New Trade Theory NTT couldn't explain all these side effects of offshoring high tec and low tec as well. It's like a domino effect: more unemployed means less consumer spending, and it just keeps going. A gradual downward spiral of our economy in the long term.

From vedic culture point of view it seems, vedic culture strongly opposes to any kind of centralization, but always to keep things individual and self sufficient. But this is just what globalization seems to be the opposite, globalization is a kind of centralization in that sense that a few dozens super rich control the world market.

Wikipedia:
New Trade Theory (NTT) is the economic critique of international free trade from the perspective of increasing returns to scale and the network effect. Some economists have asked whether it might be effective for a nation to shelter infant industries until they had grown to a sufficient size large enough to compete internationally.
New Trade theorists challenge the assumption of diminishing returns to scale, and some argue that using protectionist measures to build up a huge industrial base in certain industries will then allow those sectors to dominate the world market (via a Network effect).
They wondered whether free trade would have prevented the development of the Japanese auto industries in the 1950s, when quotas and regulations prevented import competition. Japanese companies were encouraged to import foreign production technology but were required to produce 90 percent of parts domestically within five years. It is said that the short-term hardship of Japanese consumers (who were unable to buy the superior vehicles produced by the world market) was more than compensated for by the long-term benefits to producers, who gained time to out-compete their international rivals<sup id="Footnote_1">1</sup>.
Less quantitative forms of this "infant industry" argument against totally free trade have been advanced by trade theorists since at least 1848 (see: History of free trade.)