I'm primarily concerned with the facts at the moment; I think once those are known, it becomes easier to understand the big picture. > This graph on the page y

I'm primarily concerned with the facts at the moment; I think once those are known, it becomes easier to understand the big picture. > This graph on the page you linked tells that story: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_ca... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_ca...) That graph is misleading because it leaves out benefits and other compensation; a more accurate picture is the graph here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivit... > It destroys jobs, and (maybe) creates them elsewhere. This can be devastating to individuals who's jobs are destroyed, and we don't exactly do much to help those left behind who cannot re-skill, move into new jobs etc. Think of a 55 year old factory worker who's job is outsourced. They may have been damn good at that job, but the industry is now gone, replaced with another. They're far enough away from retirement that they need to find something else. Maybe they have commitments like a very elderly parent, ties to a community etc that make it hard or impossible to leave where they are. This is true, but it is also less severe and less frequent than at any other time in American history. Jobs and wages are increasing over the last five years (since the recession) on the whole, not decreasing. On the whole, Americans are better off than probably at any other time in history. So it is not likely that Americans laid off or outsourced made the most significant impact in this political election, there just aren't enough of them relative to the rest.