A recent WSJ ($$$) has an article describing Alan Blinder's evolved concern over trade with other countries. The gist is that Blinder, while still abhorring full-out protectionism, believes losses from trade will be larger than most economists believe since technology lets English-speaking people from other countries perform services for Americans. In the third to last paragraph, we are given the prescription:
Mr. Blinder says there's an urgent need to retool America's education system so it trains young people for jobs likely to remain in the U.S. Just telling them to go to college to compete in the global economy is insufficient. A college diploma, he warns, "may lose its exalted 'silver bullet' status." It isn't how many years one spends in school that will matter, he says, it's choosing to learn the skills for jobs that cannot easily be delivered electronically from afar.
I realize Professor Blinder is arguing for more job-specific training (not general education) to help workers displaced by trade, and not for restrictions on trade. But what types of jobs would qualify as "jobs that cannot be easily delivered electronically from afar"? Since Blinder is looking ahead, another important question is what types of jobs are likely to stay in the US in the future - say in 5 years? In 10 years? In 25 years? In 50 years? Of these, which are going to be most important and who will make this decision?
Moreover, why worry about substitute resources that happen to be humans in other countries? Why not focus on developing skills for jobs that can't be easily replicated by computer programs or by some other form of capital here in the US? Arnold Kling notes:
However, I do expect that in another decade there will be tens of millions of Americans in different occupations than they are today. Technological progress will be far more important than trade in causing these shifts. More churning in employment will be caused by computers and robots than by trade.