> If your argument is that an influx of unskilled immigrant labor and an army of college professors can correct this imbalance then I'm speechless. Then try ha

> If your argument is that an influx of unskilled immigrant labor and an army of college professors can correct this imbalance then I'm speechless. Then try harder to formulate a response, because that's the proper argument for globalization: an influx of unskilled immigrant labor and an army of college professors is what will save the world. The article itself describes how globalization has benefitted the world, in particular, the massive reduction in of poverty in China, Korea, India, Poland, Indonesia, and Thailand after they opened up for globalization. It even says China went from 2% to 20% of the world's share of manufacturing, in line with it's share of world population. How is that a bad thing? Did you think the world was supposed to be static? That the third-world was supposed to be poor and suffering forever?