That being said, worldwide, globalization has moved perhaps a billion out of poverty. It’s a process and we have a moral duty to ensure it continues.
How do we square the circle – everyone needs to be on board for trade deals to work. Protectionism may help a few working class Americans, but at the expense of many more impoverished others.
As stated in the article, it makes sense to tie trade deals to increased wealth transfers from the few wealthy who benefit here to the many working class who are actively harmed. This can be done via unemployment insurance, welfare, or other means.
Though, it does bring to mind a universal minimum income as another, simpler safety net for all this. At my job, it’s important that I try to encourage team members to feel psychologically safe to take risks. That’s how we get the most innovate steps forward. Perhaps we need to start thinking of things like a universal minimum income as mere ‘safety net’, and start realizing how much more risky our Trapeze artists might be if they could depend on that safety net.
It’s not the cost of the net, its how high you fly when you know you’ve got one.
For instance, we could have been negotiating even more progressive and liberalizing trade deals this whole time if everyone here benefited from increased trade, which they would be more likely to do with a universal basic income. We could have lifted more people out of poverty, and created more wealth.