This article needs to be more specific about the actors involved. Globalization can actually be good or bad depending on the rules of the game. Blaming globalization itself lets the real villains off the hook.

In the US 100% of the job loss discussed here occurred with George W Bush, either directly or as a result of the 2008 crash. The Bush people were so pro-business that they not only didn't help, they actively encouraged off shoring. In particular they took no action on Chinese currency manipulation, because for them low Chinese wages were GOOD.

Another important player was Trump. As President he repudianted the US's own international order, declaring that he had the right to do anything he chose to do without constraint. The line between that and Ukraine is no less clear for being infrequently discussed.

Furthermore, Trump had a terrible influence on what globalization now means. Prior to Trump the WTO functioned as a means of at least defining requirements for free trade. (Blaming the WTO for Bush's promoting of offshoring remains a conscious cover-up.) Now there is no notion that there should be any international rules that anyone needs to follow.

The article is actually too negative on what pre-2016 globalization meant--for most of the world (China, India, and elsehwere) there had been a decided improvement. There was a tremendous UN-sponsored reduction in extreme poverty worldwide. Even Africa overall was starting to see progress for the first time. A next step was to be progress on environment standards and working conditions. Now all of that is by the boards.