Also: inflexibility, non-adaptation, and homogeneity.
Inflexibility: as workforces in the Industrial Belt were largely unionized, they refused to accept radical wage cuts (i.e. GM and Ford could pay $3 an hour in Mexico vs. $30 an hour in Detroit).
Non-adaptation: is this the notion that a heavily parasitized organism could survive by delivering more of its resources to the parasites? Labor costs were cutting into profits and dividends, and labor costs could be reduced by writing trade deals that eliminated things like tariffs on cross-border capital flows.
Homogeneity: completely unclear what this is supposed to refer to. The models of cars produced by GM and Ford in Mexico, or the types of steel and aluminum produced in China and imported to the US, seem to be more or less the same as was once produced domestically. Do you mean 'workforce diversity' perhaps (although I don't understand how that would factor in)?
It's curious how the corporate media is so resolutely opposed to discussing the Rust Belt issue, and the related ongoing financialization of the US economy, even though that's the key deciding factor that gave rise to Trump's surprise victory in 2016.
What you mean here is that the hard-fought gains of the labor movement over 100 years or so were drastically cut or eliminated, because what used to be economically infeasible (using overseas labor, moving capital overseas and repatriating profits) became not just feasible but desirable, thanks to specific legislative and administrative changes enacted by the US government.
Without those changes, the workforce of the Industrial Belt would not have been characterized as "inflexible", but rather smart employees who had negotiated a respectable cut of their employers profits and were able to enjoy life a little more because of it.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Their economies, as far as I understand, were not very diverse.