How is it voluntary if it's necessary for survival?
...they depend on what little money they get from their job for their very survival. If they did not continue to work, then they would literally be homeless and starving. If someone is forced to get a job in order to live, then it's not voluntary.
You're basically saying that these people would die if the exploitative employment wasn't there, ergo the exploitative employment is necessary for their survival. (Not my words, yours.)
No they are not because the need to money to buy food and live, if the only jobs available are low pay then they can't just decide to walk away...
Low pay compared to what?
How is this relevant to what I was saying?
You were alluding that profit is what made capitalism evil and I gave an example to show how profit in itself isn't immoral and thus neither is the economic system who's incentive largely relies on it. You used outsourcing as an example, but the biggest victims of outsourcing are the people from the country the corporation is leaving, because they're the ones losing employment and job opportunity. The cheap pool of labour in poor countries were already there. These labourers didn't become low-cost because corporations started outsourcing; they are low-cost because their country's economy is worse. If their country wasn't in such a bad shape economically and there was plenty of high wage employment available, these corporations wouldn't go there since they wouldn't make the profit they were looking for. Neither would the low-cost labourers agree to do this job if there was much high wage employment available.
A system based on exploitation and selfishness is inherently immoral.
That's a biased way to frame it. Solidarity vs selfishness, individualism vs collectivism, freedom vs coercion, you can look at it from so many perspectives. But exploitation? Explain to me how a mutual profitable agreement between two parties is more exploitative than for instance, a federal income tax?