I'm losing my mods to post this, but yours is the most interesting comment on the page so far and I can't pass up the opportunity to respond.
If globalisation in your imbalanced scenario means that one side has no restrictions on trade and immigration, some of the predictions you make come true. (One interesting note is that according to the Economist magazine, when the UK experienced somewhat of an economic downturn... the Polish migrants that the nativists were so incensed by just went home. Of their own volition.)
I'd assert that no one does pure globalisation, with the possible exception of the EU (and, after a fashion, internally in the United States). Instead, let's look at the effects of small-tariff imports versus full-blown protectionism. Let's take the US and China, to extend the other of your scenarios. If an American wants to use her wealth to buy products from China, why would you want the government to tell her she can't? That's using her wealth to the effect she desires. Prohibitively high tariffs might allow local companies to compete on the same products, but at a much higher price point that our heroine may not be able to afford. If she can't use her wealth to live the life she wants, what good is it? Granted, there's an outflow of wealth from the more affluent society to the less affluent, but who cares? Once the standard of living across the pond rises to a comparable level, even the immigration restrictions are moot.
It's true that as the standard of living rises, prices will also rise, but that brings us right back to where the American firm can compete at the price point because it doesn't have to ship its widgets across the Pacific... or maybe some new country will be the new "China" by then.