I guess it depends upon our definition of America.
Big corporations and their stocks do fairly well with globalization because they are able to produce products in countries that have cheap labor and low levels of regulation.
As the corporations and stock holders get rich, the American workers lose their jobs.
If I were a parent talking to a young American child, I would tell them to own stocks instead fo the usual advice of work hard and everything will work out allright.
The next thing I would explain is that it might not be the best thing for a country or global economy to have such a large divide between the rich and poor.
I think globalization is positive, but there needs to be better forms of democratic regulation on global levels. This is a tall order because our national democracies are having trouble maintaining oversight and judicial action over the markets.
This is why a lot of people protest the trade agreements. Not because they are opposed to global trade, but because they are opposed to glbal trade rules written by corporations with very little democratic involvement.
I agree, I'm not "anti-globalization" if I want child labor laws and clean air guidelines in other countries, I just want economic globalization to happen in a more democratic and healthy way.
I always hated when Bush would say that anyone opposed to his "free market" (aka no democratic interference) policies was an isolationist. I'm not an isolationist, I just want economic globalization to have some democratic checks and balances.
I think itis kinda like asking if the internet is hurting the television. Of course the internet is taking viewers away from the television stations who used to have a monopoly on information, but most would agree we are all better off with the internet offering so many outlets of information.
The companies and workers in the United States are being forced to compete in new ways due to globalization, but I think everyone is better off in the long run by having a global market.