From a practical standpoint there is no mechanism to allow that to magically happen. The socialist believes the answer lies in redistribution of wealth (as you have proposed). The pragmatist looks for the simplest workable solution, which may involve walling off the country (in a manner of speaking). The realist knows that this isn't just about pinching pennies but many hundreds of thousands (potentially millions) affected, losing their jobs and their livelihood as this happens.
Those are some very sweeping generalizations, along with a mischaracterization (socialist does not belong in the same set as pragmatist and realist).
The socialist believes the answer lies in redistribution of wealth (as you have proposed).
This is not what I have proposed. Furthermore, free market wealth redistribution is about as far from socialism as you can get. Protectionist policies are much closer to socialism than free movement of labor.
The pragmatist looks for the simplest workable solution, which may involve walling off the country (in a manner of speaking).
I don't know where to start with that statement, it has so many flaws. First, a pragmatist does not seek the simplest workable solution. A pragmatist seeks the solution that produces the desired result, regardless of means. In this situation, a pragmatist with an understanding of economics would not seek a walled garden... because almost all economists agree that protectionism hurts economies in the long run. Even Krugman couches his pro- stance on protectionism with caveats, such as the biggest one -- protectionism only works if there is no retaliatory protectionism.
The realist knows that this isn't just about pinching pennies but many hundreds of thousands (potentially millions) affected, losing their jobs and their livelihood as this happens.
Anyone with half a brain understand that employment rates, immigration, etc affect millions of people. What you describe can be attributed to anyone, from idealist through realist... though the idealist would be more likely to believe that philosophical ideals would carry through to real-world effects, despite lack of evidence. And for what it's worth, realism isn't really applicable to economics. Pragmatism is closer to what you describe when you make that statement about realists.
Retraining isn't going to happen quickly enough to keep us out of a bigger depression in the future if these problems aren't addressed.
Retraining is the only thing that will keep us out of a major depression in the future. Yes, we need to pay the piper now. The tradeoff is to pay the piper later, with a huge amount of interest tacked on. Protectionism stagnates economies, moreso now that trade is so globalized.
The only people benefiting from this in the long-term are the Indians. The decision to outsource labor to India is bad for all Americans. As an American I find the situation disturbing.
I disagree. We have cheaper products because of offshoring, which gives us excess capital to spend on other things. Some of us have greater profits (and while there is a problem with how the cost-savings are distributed, that is attributable to income imbalance in the US, not to offshoring itself). Where do you shop that you never take advantage of cheap offshore labor? How much do you think your consumer goods would cost if they were produced in the US? How much more would you pay for software if it were all developed in the US? What would your standard of living be like if everything you used or consumed were produced with American labor rates? To even think that offshored labor doesn't benefit anyone in the US is just laughable.
Additionally, I think you dismiss my question... are Indians less human than Americans? Is lifting Indians out of abject poverty less important than elevating an already-high standard of living of Americans? I'm curious if you're willing to blatantly disregard the fate of a portion of humanity, and at what point (if any) you'd consider their suffering more important than the need for people (who have access to shelter, food, and some level of medical care) to retrain.
Change is uncomfortable, and yes, some people may have a hard time of it... but the alternative is for everyone to have a hard time of it as our economy gets left behind due to protectionism and retaliatory measures. Just about the only place where protectionism makes sense is in the interest of national security (securing the food supply, etc) and in infant industries.
For some reading on why protectionism is bad, please read Friedman, Krugman, or most any other notable economist.