> That is still objectively better than starving to death and as such is still a net good for the poor family. This is a false dichotomy, of course, as is much

> That is still objectively better than starving to death and as such is still a net good for the poor family. This is a false dichotomy, of course, as is much of the rest of your frankly ridiculous argument. Even your definition of a third world sweatshop as "voluntary" leaves them only the alternative choice of starving to death - that does not seem very voluntary, per your own definition.