Whose life would you rather better?

The main question that these articles debate is

"Should a rich country, such as the United States, factor into our consumer choices the working conditions under which products were grown or made?"

Evey consumer has a personal choice and it all comes down to that "extra step". I think that most people do care about the wellness of others but because of the United State's high paced environment, they do not have the time, or money, to go searching for these rare items. The phrase "time is money" is relevant here. Isn't that sad? American life-style is not about enjoying what is around you, but rather the main focus is on a career and making the big money.
Making a lot of money, though, is not an achievable goal to people who work in the factories producing goods for American companies. The big businesses of today rely on overseas labor to make products because it is cheaper. They are able to put their factory workers under unhealthy conditions and pay them less. Longer hours, dangerous machinery, high quotas, and little benefits are all apart of these conditions- isn't it great to be an American.??

Wal Mart is a store that offers everything you could possible want under one roof- and for cheap to. I would have never question how their prices were so cheap in comparison to marketing competitors until I read the articles.
They are the biggest players in exploitation.
Obviously, they would rather pay little money for factory labor over seas and pay below poverty level to their employees. Just to save the AVERAGE AMERICAN money? No. This is not the case. They would rather make their investors more money. So much for taking care of people. Even though this poses an ethical question, people are still willing to buy their products from this store to save money.. even if "made in China products are tainted with blood from cut off fingers or hands."

Free Trade could be to blame for this big business dilemma. The theory states it is supposed to allow consumers to buy more things, have a higher standard of living, and be a solution to poverty. This is majorly flawed. Poverty is created- but so are jobs. So which one is more important? To have a little but of money.. or no money at all?

If we refuse to buy from companies that exploit their factory workers then the living expenses for us will increase but will save jobs, wages will not decrease, and little businesses will not become bankrupt. Small town lifestyle can finally go back to its original settings.

So once again it comes down to a personal choice- what will you choose? To save people just like you or me.. or save a dollar or two?