It's how markets evolve when you take out trade barriers. Consumers want cheaper garments, so they get them. Yes, people lose their jobs but that's because they were failing to be competitive; in the long term, this is good for everybody because it pushes markets to focus on what they've got a comparative advantage in. The US isn't able to beat China at making "Made in China"-quality goods- but we don't need to compete with them there, because we've got comparative advantages in other fields (massive ones, in fact) + markets produce more utility when everyone focuses on what they've got a comparative advantage in.
If consumers feel that they get more utility (or a better cost arrangement) from Chinese textiles than American textiles, you've either go to convince them they get more utility from American garments (by selling patriotism, probably, or an opposition to Chinese labor policies) or simply give up the fight and instead join a fight you've got a shot at winning.
It's not the 1960s anymore- as a culture, we've bought into the idea that if you just check off the right boxes you'll be set for your career. That's nowhere near the reality now.
lower corporate tax and minimum wage
Yeah, that's one way to bring us closer to having a comparative advantage in fields that we're no longer competitive in. But obviously it has economic repercussions elsewhere + non-economic repercussions that probably make far from viable politically.
Or people could stop learning obsolete skills just because they worked in the past.
Edited 2/15/2016 19:04:50