Fascinating question.  People have been asking that for awhile.  First, it seems that people will not stay in the same job their whole lives.  For all of us below fifty, that seems obvious.  But it seems that unions have changed to reflect that.  Can we develop a system that allows for payments into a pension fund that is controlled by the union?  My father is a minister, paid into the denomination's pension fund his whole adult life and now has a pretty good pension.  This fund reflects the fact of a minister's life:  they never stay at the same church forever and no one takes responsibility for a pension anyway so they went and set one up for themselves.
Second, world conditions make it essential for the US to go to a single payer system.  Employer based health care cannot compete on a global basis.
Third, and to me most important, all of the industrial countries will need to ensure adequate housing.  This is important because if we move into a class-based economy, dependent on education level and the opportunities one has from birth, we will shrink the consumer base year after year and eventually have a stagnant economy.  Housing plays an important role because without it we have greater movement inside the country as well as country-to-country which, if grown to a large enough percentage, will destabilize everyone involved.  If people have decent, affordable housing, it becomes an equation of what can I do to raise my own standard of living in my community?  People will be empowered to seek greater education, to be more creative, and to pursue business opportunities that benefit the whole community.  At least, that's my idealistic view of it.  
These are some of the opportunities that I see the left as having with this kind of realignment.  And, as I read somewhere recently, China has historically been a very big part of the global wealth.  We may be moving back to that norm.