Reasons why 21st century won't be that bad?

[Bridge]

Corporations either 'outsource' their jobs to poor people living in developing nations because the regulations are looser (as is commonly the case in the Southeast Asian nation I'm from), or use immigrants as expendable and cheap sources of work. The richest and most 'developing' places, like Qatar or Hong Kong, quietly sweep under the rug the fact that all their splendor comes at the cross of many migrant workers. The irony is that the unemployment crisis in places like the United States is not the fault of immigrants/foreigners, but by the people choosing to exploit them instead.

A simplistic way to look at it. Just because the cost of labor in these markets is low for US businesses does not mean that they are getting low pay or being exploited in any way. Take for example Vietnam. It's not the poorest of the South Asian countries but it will serve nicely as an example. Minimum wage in the U.S. is somewhere around 7-8 USD whereas according to wageindicator.org it is somewhere around 6.3 USD (2.3500.000 VND a month in the urban districts of the major cities, such as Ho Chi Minh, divided by 22 (average number of workdays per month) further divided by 8 (average hours of work per day) = 6.32 USD). At first glance it may seem like the Vietnamese worker is getting paid less but if you compare the two currencies you'll find out that the Vietnamese dong has roughly twice the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. For example, a 500g loaf of bread costs on average $2.20 in the US whereas in Vietnam the average price of a 500g loaf of bread is 18,450 VND = 0.87 USD. Same deal with a kilo of rice. It costs $2.39 in the US; 15,000 VND = 0.71 USD in Vietnam. Also, according to Wikipedia in the US the income tax of a single person living on minimum wage (had to calculate it, you can do so yourself if you wish) is 15% whereas in Vietnam it's only 5%. You can do similar comparisons with other South Asian or even African nations and you will probably arrive to similar conclusions. Don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider this exploitation.

However, a very real and relevant problem is poor working conditions where the risk of serious injury or death is higher than it should be. There isn't really anything corporations can do about that if they didn't construct the facilities or currently oversee them themselves. The people who work in these places are generally uneducated people without any special skills that are forced to seek labor in dangerous environments to survive. I'm not saying it is fair that these people are born into lower classes and are prevented from climbing up the social ladder by the system, but let me ask you: Is it better that these people have no work at all? They are getting paid something, often enough money to live off of and these opportunities wouldn't be available in the first place if it wasn't for "evil corporations" enabling them. Yes, in a utopian society everybody would be millionaires, but that simply is not realistic at least not in this day and age. If they didn't feel it was worth it to "be exploited" then they would seek work elsewhere, right?

Also, I find it confusing to suggest that people are forced to exploit the downtrodden. I haven't done much of that myself, and nowadays the largest companies which receive the most patronage are basically guaranteed not to have slave workers or anything that is truly exploitative. It is horrible and immoral in my opinion that certain companies, such as the biggest chocolate manufacturers in Switzerland and Belgium, purchase cocoa beans from farms which employ children (for little or no pay of course), but these thankfully are edge cases, and organizations like the International Labour Organization are working to get rid of child labor, increase pay, make work environments safer et cetera. I think it's clear that significant improvements have been made worldwide even though the situation can always be improved. I simply don't feel your interpretation is supported by evidence, at least not to the extent that you suggest, but if you can provide it then I'll gladly eat my words.

A character like Mandus acknowledges the fact that, in a time of great change (be it the Industrial Revolutions of the 1800s or the 'development' we see now), only a small portion of humanity will be able to reap the benefits of having the majority of resources allocated to them while the rest are stuck with being the loam.

Again, this isn't how it works. The Industrial Revolution was a major leap forward in the general well-being of basically everybody and in free markets everybody wins in times of economic upturns. A problem arises when special interest groups (companies) can exercise undue power on the government (like the U.S. today) or simply in corrupt fascist structures where the wealth is literally taken and distributed among the top echelon. But neither of those have anything to do with economic expansion or the distribution of wealth in a free market economy, quite the opposite: they are the result of people interfering with it. As Milton Friedman often said, and I paraphrase: It isn't a zero-sum game. It is quite possible for everybody to gain from huge economic expansion. It's fallacious to say that just because rich people get richer they must be doing so at the expense of the poor.

-5,000,000,000 people still lack internet
-2,500,000,000 lack proper sanitation
-8,700,000 are chronically starving
-7,590,000 adults lack education

This is not the fault of 'over-population' so much as it is the fact that developed countries happen to consume far more resources than those in poorer nations.

Or the fact that most of these nations are highly corrupt, giving government officials carte blanche to regulate as they see fit and strangulate the general populace (especially the lower classes) with red tape while doing favors for the people who can afford to pay them bribes. Also, if the developed nations consume more resources, that means they also pay more money, which raises the net exports of the developing countries, making them richer - correct? Or have the developed nations brought back privateering without my knowledge?

However, how many people are willing to give up their luxuries in order to give unseen millions a marginally better life?

How do you propose they give up those luxuries in the first place? It's textbook economics: If you dump money into an economy at a higher rate than is is growing, you get inflation. The only way to make the developing countries wealthier is by increasing their production and by extension, their economic growth.

This is accomplished through trade. Country A wants something, let's say a developed nation like Canada. Country B (a developing nation) is the only nation that has it, or it has it at the cheapest price. Country A decides to import it, thereby increasing demand and Country B has to increase its productivity to keep up with the demand and in turn, increases the supply. If Country A is only willing to buy it at a certain price, which happens to be lower than the one Country B feels is appropriate, no exchange is made. Because Country B has a monopoly on the item (or they have a comparative advantage in producing it), and let's assume it is something every nation wants, they can simply go to another nation that is willing to pay a higher price. No exploitation or usurping of resources whatsoever. Country B gets money which they can use to buy their own resources, and as long as the resources are available it is illogical to say that the developed nations are taking it away from the developing nations.

As a side note, if you want to stay sane where I'm from, one learns to ignore the beggars everywhere. Firstly because many of them are exploited by gangs which take money from them, and secondly because there's just too many.

Unfortunately I know the feeling.