To your point 1, some could argue:

Yes, outsourcing employs poor people elsewhere, but at 1/100th the cost. So the overall transfer of wealth is reduced, and global wealth gap increased. Also, given the intricacies of economic development, it is debatable whether an influx of outsourced jobs and factories (which may feed workers, but hinder formation of local industries) is better for the poor of that country. Just pointing out that it's not so easy to make a claim that outsourcing is categorically better for poor people anywhere, all things considered.

But the people of the world do exist within man-drawn squares, with vastly diverse internal situations. I don't think that it's obviously more ethical to employ someone in China for 12c an hour, over someone in Nebraska for $12. It's debatable, sure, but hardly a foregone conclusion.

In my own country of S. Korea, the greatest economic boon of the 60s and 70s was mobilization of our cheap labor to create and export ourselves goods like wigs and textiles, plywood, etc. This allowed local corporations to reap the margins, and the profits stayed within the country (chaebol are another matter...). With outsourcing, the profits go the multinational corporation, and none of the increased margins made possible by the cheap labor ever gets distributed to the country of the laborers.