Suppose there existed a country in say... Africa, where a small military elite lead by a powerful dictator presses the rest/majority of the population into abject slavery. He and his soldiers own them outright. He then decides to hire out their services as workers at a highly discounted price to American corporations to manufacture things like shoes.
If we trade with this guy and he starts to make a lot of money out of the deal, will he:
a) - Use the money to improve conditions for his slaves?
b) - Use the money to buy more guns for his soldiers in order to shore up the social hierarchy, so the slaves can't rise up?
c) - Improve general conditions in his country causing the wealth to unavoidably trickle down to his slaves until they gradually become empowered enough to rise up against him?
Now the next question is, what if the workers are not quite slaves, but not empowered either, and their leaders are making a lot of money by keeping the workers' wages low. Do you think that:
a) - Those leaders will allow those wages to rise if the situation remains highly profitable over a long period of time?
b) - Those leaders will become all the more oppressive?
c) - Those leaders will be powerless to prevent the workers from gradually becoming wealthy enough to assert themselves?
If you're not sure which option to choose, just try to choose the one you think will happen the most. Clearly the real outcome would be a mix of the outcomes, but probably not a perfectly even mix.