Yes, you can say it's improper and exploitive. But let me ask you -- if I can get someone to do a job in the U.S. and he does exactly what he's told and not an inch or a minute or a microgram more -- then why shouldn't I ship that job off to India? Because in India I can get the same thing for about 1/10th the cost.
In regards to management -- particularly middle management -- they can be replaced as well. Top management can also be replaced, just like everyone else. The difference is this: The guys at the bottom get to go broke and scrape by forever. The guys in the middle either become consultants or buy a vender's cart at the local mall to sell stained glass and scented candles. And the guys at the top by an estate near golf courses in Florida.
The age of relying on the corporation as caregiver and provider is over. No more jobs for life. Everyone is in business for themselves and if they can't figure out a way to make themselves invaluable to a company, then they're asking to be fired at the first sign of a slow down or through outsourcing.
Actually, you'll probably get less due to culture and languiage issues, not to mention shipping stuff back and forth and the risk of conducting business in an environment not protected, as it were, by American laws.
I refuse to accept that "110%" is the minimum acceptable level of performance. That's fraud. Offering pay for performing according to a certain job description, then saying that isn't enough, shows either an intent to screw the employees out of work for which they won't be paid, or incompetent management not writing the job descriptions correctly.