Yes, paying line workers 50 cents an hour with no benefits can really lower the cost of production! Looking at the big picture, the problem begins with using GDP as the be all and end all for trying to quantify prosperity.
First big problem is it based on standard practice of post-enlightenment materialist thought that applies no value to nature, except as raw materials for economic production! So, it shouldn't be a mystery to anyone why natural habitats are destroyed at increasing rates, and more than half of the world's known animal species are facing collapse and extinction....including the human animals who will see food production crash in a couple of decades due to destruction of topsoil, freshwater supplies etc.
The almost two century-long process of "clearing the commons"---- forcing peasants and woodland dwellers off the land by creating private ownership of land and all the resources contained therein...including underground, while those forced out by landowners and government forces had no choice other than move into already growing and overcrowded slum cities to look for work as sweatshop laborers. And this process...which started in England after the invention of steam engines has continued all around the world and now, the capitalists who search for the cheapest labor are running out of these opportunities and turning more and more to outright slavery!
With that, the increasing growth in income gaps isn't reflected in the GDP numbers which average out everyone's incomes. So, when certain CEO's are making 4000 times as much as their lowest paid employees, an increase in GDP won't tell us if the majority of workers are better or worse off!