Is the equipment (capital) that is necessary for manufacturing not also a good?  Once the knowledge was imported, and the business operations financed, it was inevitable that countries like China would take these sorts of jobs.  The fact that manufacturing was profitable when the factories were centered in Detroit and Frankfurt is, as you well know, irrelevant if the opportunity to produce at lower costs presents itself.  If that opportunity is not taken, the business will fail, because its competitors will certainly take those lower costs and crush it.  The jobs are, therefore, lost, anyway.  At least under a system with freedom of movement for the factors, there will be jobs for someone, and there will be competition to drive down prices, raise the aggregate welfare, and afford us the means to help workers who were slammed by outsourcing.

Capital can be seen as a good, as well.  That's why lenders are paid interest and shareholders are made partial owners.

There are always winners and losers on an issue like this.  I'm not going to deny that, nor should anyone else.  A world of free trade may hurt manufacturing workers in America and Europe, but a world without free trade will hurt workers and consumers elsewhere.  You've got to recognize both sides.  Simply taking the photo of the unemployed pillow maker and running with it might be great as a means to raising political capital and winning the Iowa primary for the Green Party, but it is, to put it mildly, misleading to take that photo and present it as though it accurately depicted the outcome for the world as a whole.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin