A company is allowed to do what it needs to to remain profitable as long as it's within the borders of the law. This includes outsourcing jobs to other countries for cheaper labor. In some cases, the company has to cut costs in some way to remain profitable and avoid going under, and this could mean outsourcing jobs in order to save money and continue competing in the global market.

Cheap labor isn't the only answer though and companies could find that by including the workers in the discussion instead of making executive decisions such as these between top managers only could spark up some ideas on saving money while still keeping jobs in the country. Some workers would even be willing to cut their own salary, just to keep their job.
I think companies have some obligation to the workers to insure that their jobs are secured, unless that company has to make critical changes in order to survive. Such as cutting a few jobs to save a lot others, or outsourcing in order to keep it alive, period.

__________________

There are a great many aims that can and are fulfilled by maximizing profit. You realize that some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever known have had some of the worst working conditions for their employees, right? How many more libraries, endowments, etc. do you think Carnegie was able to create by maximizing his profit?

No sensible human being sets goals that are related to the accumulation of value? Because that's what money is, stored value. Even if I didn't disagree with the above, which I do, that's a value judgment that not everyone might share. Further, since when have all corporations been run by "sensible" individuals?

I'm saying that more can be accomplished through a maximization of profit than not.

Yes because all situations that diffuse responsibility and morality are all equivalent to gang rape, how silly of me.

The fact is that sometimes, cold pitiless judgments can and do serve humanity better than knee-jerk, bleeding heart emotional decisions.

__________________

You're only looking at one side of the equation. How many impoverished families/dead workers/child laborers/whatever did it take to build those extra libraries?

Sorry, my phrasing was unclear. I meant no sensible person should exclusively set money-related goals. Focusing singlemindedly on one aspect of life and ignoring everything else is a great way to fuck yourself up.

And regarding the last sentence, I was under the impression we were talking about what should happen rather than what does happen.

And the cost of that accomplishment can be pretty steep depending on how you go about maximizing profit.

No, but events of that nature (where a violent crime is committed in full view of a number of witnesses and yet no one moves to help the victim) commonly occur in part because the moral responsibility to act is diffused among the people present, so they all feel like something should be done, but don't feel that they should personally be the one to do it. But diffusion of responsibility doesn't equal abdication of responsibility; in a crisis situation where there isn't time for discussion it means that someone needs to step up and take on that responsibility personally, and when time isn't critical it means more people need to be involved in the decision-making process. What diffusion of responsibility never means is that the responsibility to act morally ceases to exist.

Glad to see we're not using false dichotomy fallacies or anything.

__________________
Have you ever felt so out of place
That the smile on your face
Was to keep from cryin
I dont know why we get so out of touch
But I dont want much
Just to keep on tryin
People say a prayer every day that they end up with more than their nextdoor neighbor
Im not buyin all their ego trips but I'll get my kicks when I find out
What happiness is