I don't know about the details of that situation. There are certainly abusive situations in the world, and where that is the case, I would argue that those situ

I don't know about the details of that situation. There are certainly abusive situations in the world, and where that is the case, I would argue that those situations can best be characterized by their criminality and violation of human rights -- in the sense of those effects being the "problem" rather than economic effects. What you're describing sounds like a criminal infringement of universal human rights -- such as in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude (Article 4), that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention (Article 9), and that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and has the right to leave any country (Article 13). One cannot analyze the economy rationally in the context of flagrant violation of the law and human rights, since economics requires property rights and trade. If a warlord invades a nearby country and his government seizes possession of all companies and their property, and puts people into slavery, then clearly that's an unethical thing, but I don't think it necessarily teaches us much about the economics of a poor but peaceful and law-abiding country in which many workers earn low wages. Additionally, I agree that there will be macroeconomic effects, but those same effects also argue against your point on a long-term basis: Why did they move to Qatar in the first place? Presumably because they heard there were good jobs there. What happens now that people hear that there are no good jobs there, and that Qatar engages in criminal violation of human rights? Workers will stop moving there, and will move somewhere else with better opportunity instead. Or if Qatar is still their best option, perhaps they'll risk the same outcome -- but who are you blaming in that scenario? Certainly criminals are to blame for breaking the law, or violating human rights, but I'm not sure what it tells us about law-abiding companies that pay low wages. If the argument is that companies offering low wages causes criminality and human rights abuses, then that argument needs to be made, not merely hinted at. Rather than assuming that low-paying jobs cause crime, it seems rather simpler and more intuitive to assume that both crime and low-paying jobs exist in areas with preexisting poverty. So the question that I'm posing is, what's the best way to lift areas out of poverty? With jobs -- the best jobs that anyone is willing to offer to workers in the area, and the best jobs that the workers are qualified to work.