They are against corps who are keeping prices low by using resources overseas. If they want to stop this, the legal way is to not buy good or services from such companies.
Why do you keep making strawman arguments? Since when is Occupy Wall Street (again with the key term being Wall Street) a movement about protectionism and free trade? If anything the Tea Partiers had that agenda much higher up on their list. OWS is about the powerful using their power to funnel money upwards and reduce the quality of life for the rest of society.
When the cost of producing a good drops $6, as an example, by offshoring the labor but the price of the good drops $1, and the company now enjoys an additional $4 per unit in profit you have a disparity. You can say that the commoners shouldn't complain because they are paying $1 less, but that is a short sighted argument. Not only are they collectively losing out on the $6 in wages but they only gain a $1 in lower costs. That is a total loss of $5 even though things are "cheaper". How does the top end fare? Instead of paying out $6 in labor per unit, they pay $1, pass on savings of $1 and overall net gain $4.
The real problem comes when companies have merged into oligopolies and there are no real choices to stop buying goods and services from such companies. There aren't really options, and if they exist they carry a significant premium, one that somebody who is struggling to make ends meet would be unable to choose. See how the game is rigged? See what OWS is about? The choices you propose don't exist in any practical sense.
If they get their way, they will be paying higher prices for everything. Do they really think the companies will stop earning enough to ensure investment in the companies? Are they that stupid? Are YOU that stupid? Increased costs are passed onto the consumer.
The problem is cost cutting is passed into corporate profits and funneled to the elite. If the cost cutting profits were distributed in a manner that encouraged a healthy middle class then higher costs would simply be inflation.
The problem isn't the cost of goods, be it lower, higher or holding steady. The problem is that income for anyone not in the elite classes has been stagnant or dropping for 30 years. The erosion of the middle class makes cheap goods insignificant. The credit bubbles (CC, homes and home equity loans, student loans, etc) have pushed the general populace further and further into debt just to be able to afford these cheaper goods. The problem is that income is dropping, yet GDP continues to rise. Money
is being funneled to the top at the expense of everyone else. Credit has served as a curtain to hide that fact for some time, but the bubbles are all on the verge of popping (including the national debt).