The author draws a straight line between a character trait and a stance on globalization. He seems to be addressing an audience of pro-globalization economists (the efficiency-minded group) and attempting to explain to them why people are anti-globalization (the individual-minded group).  The debate is once again cast in the popular jargon of pro-globalization economists.  To the author and to them, the debate is about globalization versus non-globalization of the economy. But buried within the intuitive position of "anti-globalization" individual-minded people is a history which is neither pro-globalization nor anti-globalization. 

What actually happened in the United States has nothing to do with globalization as a concept to be "for" or "against", nothing to do with a policy decision. It had to do with power, influence and money.

From WWII forward, manufacturing facilities in the United States became saddled with increasing costs of organized labor, work rules, environmental rules, labor laws, insurance, taxes and health care costs. Some of those costs were mandated by law, others were the result of free market competitive forces. They were essentially the achievement of progressive and civilized thought.  

There was a migration by manufacturing companies from the Northeast to the South to the Carribean and finally to Asia where the cost of doing business was far less, laws were less intrusive and in some cases competition (for labor) non-existent.

The forces which might have stopped this end run around civilized law did not muster. They did not notice because they did not work in factories.

It was a complete victory for the free-market capitalist who could produce goods without the constraints of U.S. law and at the same time be protected by the freedoms guaranteed by U.S. law.