It's been a lot of years since I looked at data but I recall as European and, later, US investments increased in Latin America, remittances flowed out of region in variety of forms - profits, commissions, patent fees, interest payments. Not coincidentally, power of foreign capital and finance gained increasing role in economic decisions of 'host' countries. Repatriation of US profits and income occurred at rate of about four to one return on US investment dollar - a means of decapitalization and source of maldevelopment.
Of course, some argue that foreign investment had salutary effect on Latin America industrial growth - capital meant jobs with higher wages. But if Chilean copper workers, for example had higher wages than "average" Chilean worker, copper workers employed by US corporations Anaconda & Kennecott (sp?) received about 1/8th hourly salary of US copper workers employed by those companies despite similar levels of productivity, living conditions in US-owned Chilean mining towns were worse than those in US, overall intensity of exploitation by US companies was greater in Chile than in US (none of these factors supports 'labor aristocracy' as anyone familiar with lives of US miners knows).
UP/Allende policy of nationalization without compensation, fomenting precedent that could have endangered transnational capital throughout Third World, led domestic opposition & US to support most reactionary strategy. Michael Hoover