There is the local (domestic) perspective and the global perspective.<p>Globalization results in a move towards global equilibrium so that locales with low cost workers will see improved financials and economics for their workforce, locales with high cost medium skills workers will see a decline in economic and financial outlook.<p>The question, is what&#x27;s best overall for the global workforce versus what&#x27;s best for the local&#x2F;domestic workforce.<p>Does the EU, Japan and the US among others &quot;owe&quot; third world nations offshoring ensuring they, emerging econs,  kick start their economies?<p>The first world could form a cartel of sorts keep all progress to themselves, ensuring third work countries remain poor but also ensuring their own progress is stunted perhaps net negative.<p>Could or should the first world and advanced economies provide some work insurance to their low and medium skill workforce?  If they can afford it, why not?