Yes, but why is it making things cheaper where it touches? Usually it's because it allows production with fewer people or by people with lower wages than before. Thus things get cheaper because some subset of people lose jobs or wages. That's fine as long as those people are able to find new jobs or supplemental income sources (many do), but I think the point here is that it's not a universal benefit. I have to agree with the parent post here - for some portion of people, technology has led to lower wages while cost of living decreases (food, products, etc.) are offset by increases in things you need to lift yourself up (healthcare, education, housing).

The problem is that the benefits of globalization are offset by the centralization of the remaining jobs, and is adding to the inequality seen in America. There are some parts of the country doing fantastic, but a lot of the Midwest is seeing lower wages, fewer jobs, and a lower quality of life.

That's largely a false narrative.

What do you mean by this? What did I say that was false?

You're right that certain parts of the country have been hit hard by automation and globalization but the idea that the hard hit people are the Trump voters is not particularly true.

From what I've read, you are wrong. Of course there are a lot of factors that go into an election, but here's the site that tells me it's definitely a factor: https://econsnapshot.com/2016/11/14/how-trump-won/amp/

In the future, if you could provide a source for your argument, it could give more substantive discussion.

I fully agree that there are multiple forces at work here and globalization and technology are not a universal benefit to the western poor and middle-income.

I just wanted to expose something commonly left out of these discussions, which is that technology is generally deflationary. More technology in the areas of healthcare, education, and housing might be the solution, not the problem.

> Cost of living is dictated predominantly by the cost of housing, healthcare, education, and food.

> so far, technology seems to be making just about everything it touches cheaper for everyone.

You say this, but only provide a source for 1 out of 4 key indicators of cost of living. Can you provide the same evidence towards housing, healthcare and education becoming significantly cheaper as a % of a budget of an average household?

Otherwise that statement is just incorrect.

@antisthenes: I did not say technology has made housing, education, or healthcare cheaper. Please read what I said again.