An issue with this type of analysis is that "them" is ambiguous. Even if the candy company folds in 5 years, part of "them" is probably still ahead - the manag

An issue with this type of analysis is that "them" is ambiguous. Even if the candy company folds in 5 years, part of "them" is probably still ahead - the management team "them" experiences gains through short-term incentives for performance while the ownership part of "them" suffers losses. In some cases, those owners aren't fat-cat capitalists - they're workers' pensions and retirements funds. In these cases, "we" didn't end up being better off by the company moving to Mexico. Also, the claim that this type of relocation "frees" local labor from the toil of candybar-making to focus on real value creation is a stretch. More likely, they're now free to compete in a smaller labor market and superficially one would expect that to drive wages down (since the demand for jobs hasn't changed and the supply has of them has gone down).