For non-workers the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, while for workers the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.
If your income is from owning capital or from real estate value increase or from government benefits, then anything that can reduce the price of things you want to buy is a benefit. This is a large part of the population.
If your income is from working and producing goods and services, then getting paid less is a negative that is far worse than the positive from cheaper things.
Many people have their foot in both camps. Their main source of income is from their real estate appreciating in value, while working is just a means to pay off the old mortgage so that they soon can get a new cash out by mortgaging at a higher value.
It's very much also economic warfare waged by the elderly against the young. The elderly own almost all capital and are interested in increasing it. Keeping the young as poor as possible is excellent for them, so as to keep them from being a threat to their wealth and power.
I'll be the first to admit that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for specific workers. NAFTA sucked for autoworkers. H1B visas suck for IT and software workers.
I think other types of workers benefit more than the portrait you paint, and not just the capital owners.
Unless you are a utilitarian (I'm not), I agree there is a valid debate on how much policy should disadvantage a small group for "the greater good".
Sure, I benefit that a washing machine costs $600 instead of $6000. That benefit is small in comparison with if my yearly income would be double. In almost all possible scenarios, higher wages are better than cheaper goods. You cannot improve your economic situation by purchasing cheap consumer goods, but you can do it with higher income.
All market effects are exponential. Of course a doubled salary is unrealistic, but not ridiculous. The generation of people who are elderly today, had more than double the salary of anybody who is a worker today. Yes, they had more expensive consumer goods, but they could instead afford the important things: land, houses, vehicles and have a surplus to invest.
H1b only sucks for short sighted people. Places like India would in any case have more software engineers available, than the US. Moving and hiring best of Indian engineers in the US kept teams operating in the US from being offshored wholesale.
Software isn't a car, doesn't require physical transportation.
An understaffed team in the US would be worth less than an offshore team with offshoring overhead.
If your income is from owning capital or from real estate value increase or from government benefits, then anything that can reduce the price of things you want to buy is a benefit. This is a large part of the population.
If your income is from working and producing goods and services, then getting paid less is a negative that is far worse than the positive from cheaper things.
Many people have their foot in both camps. Their main source of income is from their real estate appreciating in value, while working is just a means to pay off the old mortgage so that they soon can get a new cash out by mortgaging at a higher value.
It's very much also economic warfare waged by the elderly against the young. The elderly own almost all capital and are interested in increasing it. Keeping the young as poor as possible is excellent for them, so as to keep them from being a threat to their wealth and power.