You put your finger on the conundrum I face every time I try to argue for universal economic justice within this consumer-driven economic model. 

By the rules of the game, these other economies need to be built the same way we built our own. If Ford Motor Co. wishes to expand its market, for example, it should in fact be encouraged to open factories in Mexico and/or China and/or Brazil and/or Jordan, etc. But they should then be compelled to sell the vehicles made in Mexico to the Mexicans; in China to the Chinese; and so on. I think the argument for such a "rule" is quite elegant and easily understood, refuted only by arguments that consider labor to be a commodity rather than real people who are "partners" in this economy worthy of sharing the common wealth. (See Qnonymous' remarks below.)

Where this all gets kinda messy is in confronting the reality that continued growth of a consumer economy is unsustainable, doubly-so if it is allowed to expand globally. The thought of "a Chevy in every garage" in China simply defies logic and comprehension. There simply aren't enough resources available to allow the continued and un-checked growth of consumerism in Western economies, let alone on a global scale. But that's a discussion for another time.

In the meantime, if we are all committed to this "consumer economy," then economic justice would insist that the present exploitation of foreign labor cannot be tolerated. Rather, these foreign workers need to be allowed to participate as fully and as beneficially in the growth of their own economy as we American workers experience(d?) in the growth of our own economic development. Anything else is neo-colonialism at best, or slavery and depredation at worst such as we see that compels workers in China to throw themselves to their death rather than suffer such injustice and pain and near-total loss of dignity.

"We gotta move Harley-Davidson out of Milwaukee to maintain our competitiveness."

"GE's gotta move off-shore so they can compete in the gobal marketplace."

We hear this kind of bullshit all the time. Every time I hear some economic analyst talk about "competitiveness" when discussing labor costs, the hair on the back of my neck stands straight up. It seems to be such a plausible argument - that of course business will always seek its way to the lowest cost of production. If labor can be purchased for pennies per hour in Myanmar, it would be ludicrous to expect GE to keep jobs here in the U.S.! Right?

It is indeed a credible argument but only if we accept the crazed notion of labor as a commodity and nothing more. And such nonsense inevitably leads to really whacked concepts like the need to give up health care, pension and other benefits and to also take periodic reductions in wages (no increases!) for the purpose of "creating a healthier economy." It kinda' begs the question: "Just whose economy is it, anyway?"

Thanks for the comments, Bruce! And keep the faith. Solidarity!

You get no disagreement from me. Very well put, in fact. Romney, for example, takes offense at being called a Vulture Capitalist - but then goes on to defend Vulture Capitalism, fer chrissakes! Raiding pension funds. Closing factories after leveraging them out of business. Human wreckage and carnage in his wake as he sails on to make billions. "Hey! That's Business!" Wink. Nod.

I want their children to suffer, too.

Hey, DDay! Good to see you again! And I'm lovin' me some DEAD! ;O)