Voluntarily entered agreement to mutual benefit...the alternative is to take the Susan Sarandon approach (that is, legislate the jobs there out of existence..."better they starve"). The entire reason a company would go halfway across the world is because it's cheaper...using government Force to Coerce people into paying American wages will not mean the people there will be making more money...the companies simply won't build plants there (how could they afford to pay more for wages and for shipping? and why would any person do that?)
Bottom line, companies do not exist to provide jobs and wages. Wal-Mart does not sell bread to me for $X because I want it for that price...they offer it because the $X is more valuable to them than the bread. By the same token, I don't exist to provide income to Wal-Mart. I don't shop at Wal-Mart because it needs my money...I buy the bread because I value the bread more than my $X. But at the end of the day, each of us can only OFFER the other our property...neither can coerce the other; we each have the power to refuse the deal and walk away.
The situation is no different in India. A company can show up and build a factory, open the doors, and OFFER to pay people X. If X is worth more than their labor (which it surely will be if it's 5-8 times more than they're making now), they may choose to accept the deal. Just as the company has no right to Force people to work for them (or to order them to work under certain conditions), the individuals have no right to Force the company to hire them or employ them under certain conditions.
(As a side note, whenever a company opens a new factory over there, people typically beat down the doors to get such "low paying" jobs...they offer bribes to the employers, offer to pay their first month's salary in return for securing a job for a family member, etc. What we consider low paying here is actually an opportunity few of them would ever see, as it is more than any other place there pays them.)
www.capmag.com if you want to learn about Freedom and Individual Rights (which go hand in hand)
CEOs in America make thousands of times more than their employees. In Britain, they only make about six times as much.
See that CD you just bought for $15? It cost about 1 cent to make it. How much does the artist get? About 50 cents or less per CD. How much goes into the laborers that made the CD? Well, seeing that it was either made by machines or minimum-wage workers (to assemble the case), the electricity/labor cost per CD is probably 5-10 cents. Let's round up and say it's a dollar total. So where's the rest go? Into the corporation.
The Rock Against Bush CD cost $7 (if you buy it directly from the producer). That's less than half the price of a typical CD. That shows that it is possible to have cheap CDs.
An ideal corporation always puts its employees before its executive office and always puts its consumers before its profit. But of course, none of this happens. We see people get laid off so that the exectuive's stock can go up a half of a point. We see goods that cost a dollar to make being sold for twenty. We see them exploiting the children of third-world countries.
Don't give me crap about how they want the job. It's exploiting, regardless of whether they want it or not. Since when do Americans deserve more rights than Africans or Chinese?
Oh, and corporations basically have the government and media in its pocket. Corporations buy the presidency through donations. Enron donated $114,752 to the Republicans and $102,050 to the Democrats. Then, when they're elected, the do whatever the corporation wants. Oh, and they control the media too. Microsoft controls NBC, Fox controls Fox news, etc. Liberal media my ass. It's not a liberal media, it's not a conservative media. It's a profiteer media. Meaning, anything that will get them a profit, they will report.
Money controls everything. take control of a countries economy, u practically are the king.