Exactly, which is why it's immoral...The system of government requires people to rely on their job for survival. If they did not have a job, they would die... therefore their jobs are involuntary. They are forced into an exploitative relationship where they have no other choice.
People don't really have to rely on jobs, but on income. People in the West without jobs generally still have an income and are able to survive. If you mean people have to rely on income, then that's really a global thing, not specifically an outsourcing corporations kind of thing.
The agreement between a company and it's workers isn't fully voluntary or mutual because the workers are forced to get a job to live.
I'll tie this in with the first part. People aren't forced to be employed. They can start their own company if they have the means. If they don't have the means, they'll have to work and save up money until they have the means. If they don't want to be employed or start a business themselves, they are still covered by the welfare state so they wouldn't die. Either way you look at it, there's is absolutely no coercion when a person is applying for a job other than the coercion of one's self-esteem or parents or the necessity to look after one's family. If one doesn't want to work or isn't able to, okay, he still gets money. Ergo, no coercion, opposed to the coercion that does exist through federal income tax, which is why I mentioned it, and which is definitely going to be required in the transition to a communist society.
Low pay meaning they have to live in poverty for the rest of their life.
No, the question was: "low pay compared to what?" Meaning, their income is low, but low compared to what? Compared to the median income in the US?
I said exploitation is what is evil. If someone is profiting off the backs of poor people and keeping a lower class in poverty to gain wealth for themselves then that's immoral.
If an entrepreneur is enjoying insane amounts of profit from his company without his employees being able to climb out of poverty and into the middle class, than I agree that's immoral and selfish. But most businesses have helped people get out of poverty. Poverty usually occurs when people do not have jobs or when the produce of independent workers (such as farmers) is price-capped by governments (often in coalition with big business). But that's an exploitation not inherent to capitalism.
Profiting off of someone else's labor is exploitative and a federal income tax does that as well, But I don't see what a federal income tax has to do with anything I said.
You make it sound as if an entrepreneur is by definition making profit on the back of the workers, but that's not right (and Marx wasn't right either). When an entrepreneur desires his company to grow, the growth of that company will require additional labour. If that labour is not profitable for whomever is agreeing to get the job, than that person wouldn't have agreed to it and looked somewhere else. People apply for jobs, right? They aren't dictated by anyone else to take any given job, right (unless maybe a strict father)? So the contract is mutually agreed upon without any coercion, right? You argue that that kind of employment is exploitative, but the entrepreneur might as well not create the job and where does that leave the unemployed?