I read the paper, thanks for asking. What the paper shows is that the sweatshop model provides workers superior rages considering previous earnings, but the author also proposes that critics (like me) believe that those wages are non-negotiable and without providing a standard of living. What you're saying about violence doesn't make sense. If we look at who is harming other people in the world we would see that people from wealthy areas are carrying out wars which will make them even wealthier while the poor -- poorer. And in instances like what happened in Rwanda, our ability to suddenly intervene in crises of liberty and genocide is absent, even though we have intervened in Iraq underneath the same pretense, where comparatively speaking, people were prosperous. There is no logic in saying that there are quantifiable degrees of violence. Violence is violence, and I don't believe that it's inherent. I think violence is the result of failed diplomacy and politics.
Seriously, how can you justify materialism with, "well, they're earning on average 20 cents an hour more?" Even prominent economists like Paul Kruger who formulated that idea can't establish a convincing argument that they're "better off".
http://slaveryfootprint.org/I have 23 slaves working for me. How many work for you?