Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year

[JoeMoma]

They will always be on welfare no matter what the National minimum wage is.

If they were making more they could not collect welfare. Why do you want the wealthy creating more government dependence?

Are we talking one person or one company paying more? Then the answer would be yes the would get off welfare.


Or

Are we talking raising the national minimum wage? The answer would be no, the welfare eligibility would have to be raised..because they are still making mw and still would be poor

I'm saying the rich paying so little while making billions increases government dependence. If you are for smaller government we need the rich to pay a living wage. How to make that happen can be debated, but there is no debate the Walton's paying so little increases government dependence. How "conservatives" can applaud them for increasing the size of government I have no clue. If we had lots of good paying jobs with good benefits people could be more independent and government would shrink. We'd have no obamacare if companies were giving good benefits.

Wal Mart is around $10-11 an hour to start right now, that is PLENTY as a beginning wage. Figure that out. $10 an hour times 2080 hours a year is obviously $20,080. That is low enough that there will be no income tax withholding and if you have kids and such, that's your fault, don't have kids you can't afford.

In real dollars the minimum wage has always been historically around $10 an hour. Need more money? Get a better job.

. Ok, for how long should a person doing a job be paid that minimum wage per hour ? You say need more money, get a better job right, but I say is there no raises from the 10 per hour ever ? What about companies that want to exploit their labor forces, and therefore they do this by trying not to give them a raise (profit sharing), and therefore they are attempting to work people by their mentalities, instead of working them by what they bring to the table as a whole person ? Then what about when a corporation does such a thing, and then turns to the government to help the employees it is screwing over ? Talk about profiting in everyway possible, and then having the taxpayer subsidize them and their employees while they make billions ? Wow.

Until that person performs at a level that is worth more than minimum wage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We're not talking about the unemployed. We're talking about people who have a full time job or multiple part time jobs, which pay minimum wage, which has not been increased since Clinton was in power.

I just said to cancel earned income credits and have employers assume the subsidies currently being paid by American taxpayers. That would reduce welfare for the 47%, down to 14%. These large corporations have the profits to support their own workers and should not expect taxpayers do it.

Food stamps too should be cancelled as well. This has to be the most expensive program to manage because it duplicates the states' work in deciding welfare eligibility, but is paid federally. The average benefit is less than $150.00 a month. I seriously wonder how much it actually costs each month to pay out this amount, given the convoluted manner in which it's paid. This will not only reduce welfare, but also the size of government.

You have 5,000,000 jobs which are going unfilled, because workers lack the skills. Teach them the skills, pay them while they're learning. Solve two problems at once.

There are lots of ways of reducing the need for wage subsidies, none of which involve giving full time workers one cent of middle class taxpayers' money. Make the corporations pay their own damn workers.

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

Companies do not "support" workers. That's not what companies do nor are they obligated to do so. You don't get paid by how much you want or need, you get paid by how much you're work is worth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Providing training to people who don't want it nor are interested in it won't work. There are plenty of schools out there that provide financial aid. If a person wants to better themselves, they can pay for it like everybody else. Nobody is stopping them. But you have to be qualified to take many courses which I'm sure many of these people are not.

In my line of work, companies do offer free training. They will get you your license, guarantee you a job, and all you have to do is apply and sign a year contract. Guess what? They can't even get workers that way.

For some of these people, as long as government is willing to support them, there is no need for them to work. Why should they? They don't want much out of life, just a roof over their head and plenty of food in the fridge. They have no ambition to advance themselves beyond that point.

 

[JoeMoma]

We're not talking about the unemployed. We're talking about people who have a full time job or multiple part time jobs, which pay minimum wage, which has not been increased since Clinton was in power.

I just said to cancel earned income credits and have employers assume the subsidies currently being paid by American taxpayers. That would reduce welfare for the 47%, down to 14%. These large corporations have the profits to support their own workers and should not expect taxpayers do it.

Food stamps too should be cancelled as well. This has to be the most expensive program to manage because it duplicates the states' work in deciding welfare eligibility, but is paid federally. The average benefit is less than $150.00 a month. I seriously wonder how much it actually costs each month to pay out this amount, given the convoluted manner in which it's paid. This will not only reduce welfare, but also the size of government.

You have 5,000,000 jobs which are going unfilled, because workers lack the skills. Teach them the skills, pay them while they're learning. Solve two problems at once.

There are lots of ways of reducing the need for wage subsidies, none of which involve giving full time workers one cent of middle class taxpayers' money. Make the corporations pay their own damn workers.

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

Companies do not "support" workers. That's not what companies do nor are they obligated to do so. You don't get paid by how much you want or need, you get paid by how much you're work is worth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Providing training to people who don't want it nor are interested in it won't work. There are plenty of schools out there that provide financial aid. If a person wants to better themselves, they can pay for it like everybody else. Nobody is stopping them. But you have to be qualified to take many courses which I'm sure many of these people are not.

In my line of work, companies do offer free training. They will get you your license, guarantee you a job, and all you have to do is apply and sign a year contract. Guess what? They can't even get workers that way.

For some of these people, as long as government is willing to support them, there is no need for them to work. Why should they? They don't want much out of life, just a roof over their head and plenty of food in the fridge. They have no ambition to advance themselves beyond that point.

I knew a guy at a factory I where I worked that was like that. He'd did a good job and had experience, so he was approached about being a supervisor. He turned it down because he did not want the responsibility or the headache of dealing with others. He wanted to simply do his job and be left alone. Some people don't want to leave their confortable zone.

 

[JoeB131]

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

You see, Ray, this is where you are confused. The thing isn't "how much are you willing to pay", the question is, "how should the proceeds be distributed?"

I would rather see the kid who made my lunch get a decent wage than the CEO of McDonalds, who did nothing to get me my lunch, get an eight-figure salary or the Shareholers in McDonalds, who again, did nothing to put that lunch on my table, get a dividend.

The thing is, the distribution of the proceeds of labor are skewed. But you'll whine about the pittance we pay in welfare when 43% of the wealth is going to 1% of the population which is not doing 43% of the labor.

 

[JoeMoma]

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

You see, Ray, this is where you are confused. The thing isn't "how much are you willing to pay", the question is, "how should the proceeds be distributed?"

I would rather see the kid who made my lunch get a decent wage than the CEO of McDonalds, who did nothing to get me my lunch, get an eight-figure salary or the Shareholers in McDonalds, who again, did nothing to put that lunch on my table, get a dividend.

The thing is, the distribution of the proceeds of labor are skewed. But you'll whine about the pittance we pay in welfare when 43% of the wealth is going to 1% of the population which is not doing 43% of the labor.

So McDonald's doesn't need a CEO?

Distributing the CEO's salary to all the low wage earners at the McDonald's franchises would make little impact on their salaries. Probably less than a nickel an hour.

 

[initforme]

If people are willing to apply for those jobs they shouldnt expect to get paid. Walmart is set up for high turnover and isnt interested in keeping even their best workers. That way they dont have to pay them. Big retail business model. Walking in those doors day after day would be like getting kicked in the groin daily.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

You see, Ray, this is where you are confused. The thing isn't "how much are you willing to pay", the question is, "how should the proceeds be distributed?"

I would rather see the kid who made my lunch get a decent wage than the CEO of McDonalds, who did nothing to get me my lunch, get an eight-figure salary or the Shareholers in McDonalds, who again, did nothing to put that lunch on my table, get a dividend.

The thing is, the distribution of the proceeds of labor are skewed. But you'll whine about the pittance we pay in welfare when 43% of the wealth is going to 1% of the population which is not doing 43% of the labor.

The CEOs do nothing? Then how come you don't eat at Henry's, lumbs or sambos any more?

Damn Joe you stupid

There was one in wheeling Illinois

 

[beagle9]

What I don't understand is why conservatives want to continue donating $4,000 per year of their income to subsidize these behemouths.

If your business cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees first and foremost, then they have no right to be in business.

And who made those rights, you?

A business has the right to be open provided it meets government and safety standards, and that they have customers willing to deal with them. That's all a business has to do.

All they have to do ? Ok, then how about not us subsidizing them any longer ? You didn't include that so it must be something extra their getting. I say stop the corporate welfare immediately.

 

[Dragonlady]

What I don't understand is why conservatives want to continue donating $4,000 per year of their income to subsidize these behemouths.

If your business cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees first and foremost, then they have no right to be in business.

And who made those rights, you?

A business has the right to be open provided it meets government and safety standards, and that they have customers willing to deal with them. That's all a business has to do.

It has to do a whole lot of other things. They have to give good service to their customers, or they won't have them for long. That's where their employees earn the wages. They have to pay their bills or their suppliers won't do business with them.

And they can't rely on government handouts to feed their employees. If your company can't afford to pay a living wage to your employees, don't expect American taxpayers to do it for you.

 

[beagle9]

We're saying STOP taking money from the middle class and using it to subsidize those working for the 1%, whose wages have risen by over 200% since 1980. Raising the minimum wage would do that and give people who haven't had a real raise since Reagan came into office. The income of those who have taken more than their fair share of the profits, will go down, but their wealth won't. But by raising taxes on the 1% so they pay the same percentages as their workers, they won't get to keep as much in future.

Again, government forced wealth redistribution.

Working people don't "subsidize" anybody. That's the way companies divide THEIR wealth that THEY created. All companies seek is to be the most profitable, and that takes talent at the top--not the bottom, because anybody at the bottom can do those jobs. Nobody at the bottom can attract investors to the company nor make it expand.

There is this fallacy that leftists believe whereas if you take money from the top, they just dig deeper into their pockets and do with less. That's never happened before and it won't happen in the future. When you take money from the top, they recoup that money in other ways.

They may cut healthcare benefits or make employees pay more towards it. They may increase the cost of their product or service which of course gets passed on to us. They may just move some or all operations overseas. They may make investments in automation as many companies have already. But they will do something, and those at the top won't suffer one bit.

. Wow, so your saying that the top is tremendously corrupt basically, and therefore they control all the cards on the table always ? So are we dealing with vegas style corruption in our business models & politics in all that we see now ? Otherwise they will adjust in anyway possible, but near the bottom there is no way to adjust what so ever eh ? Otherwise just eat it, because they are dealing the cards eh ? And don't give us that bull crap about someone just being able to go find another job that is better, because in a lot of cases the decks have been stacked and they have been rigged against the workers in many ways. All these companies (who are guilty mind you) have to do, is start doing better, but it ain't happening is it ? The deck has been stacked, and the house ain't gonna lose ever. Just sayin...Then the corrupt government tries to intervene but for what ? To make us feel like someone is helping out, even if it is a good cop bad cop scenario being played on us ? Big government & big corporations are one in the same. They both prop each other up in many ways. Wonder why when I add one of these moticons, it duplicates them, and then I can't erase them with this browser I use ? LOL

 

[beagle9]

If they were making more they could not collect welfare. Why do you want the wealthy creating more government dependence?

Are we talking one person or one company paying more? Then the answer would be yes the would get off welfare.


Or

Are we talking raising the national minimum wage? The answer would be no, the welfare eligibility would have to be raised..because they are still making mw and still would be poor

I'm saying the rich paying so little while making billions increases government dependence. If you are for smaller government we need the rich to pay a living wage. How to make that happen can be debated, but there is no debate the Walton's paying so little increases government dependence. How "conservatives" can applaud them for increasing the size of government I have no clue. If we had lots of good paying jobs with good benefits people could be more independent and government would shrink. We'd have no obamacare if companies were giving good benefits.

Wal Mart is around $10-11 an hour to start right now, that is PLENTY as a beginning wage. Figure that out. $10 an hour times 2080 hours a year is obviously $20,080. That is low enough that there will be no income tax withholding and if you have kids and such, that's your fault, don't have kids you can't afford.

In real dollars the minimum wage has always been historically around $10 an hour. Need more money? Get a better job.

. Ok, for how long should a person doing a job be paid that minimum wage per hour ? You say need more money, get a better job right, but I say is there no raises from the 10 per hour ever ? What about companies that want to exploit their labor forces, and therefore they do this by trying not to give them a raise (profit sharing), and therefore they are attempting to work people by their mentalities, instead of working them by what they bring to the table as a whole person ? Then what about when a corporation does such a thing, and then turns to the government to help the employees it is screwing over ? Talk about profiting in everyway possible, and then having the taxpayer subsidize them and their employees while they make billions ? Wow.

Until that person performs at a level that is worth more than minimum wage.

. But, but, but there was someone here that said there will be no raises, as companies aren't obligated to ever give raises... What to do, what to do ?

 

[beagle9]

What I don't understand is why conservatives want to continue donating $4,000 per year of their income to subsidize these behemouths.

If your business cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees first and foremost, then they have no right to be in business.

And who made those rights, you?

A business has the right to be open provided it meets government and safety standards, and that they have customers willing to deal with them. That's all a business has to do.

It has to do a whole lot of other things. They have to give good service to their customers, or they won't have them for long. That's where their employees earn the wages. They have to pay their bills or their suppliers won't do business with them.

And they can't rely on government handouts to feed their employees. If your company can't afford to pay a living wage to your employees, don't expect American taxpayers to do it for you.

. What you wrote above may have meant something years ago, but these days the decks are stacked, so bad service from disgruntled workers it will be. That's what the new norm has become, and as for the monopolies... well ... they could care less, because they have all but laid waist to the competition.
.

 

[beagle9]

We're not talking about the unemployed. We're talking about people who have a full time job or multiple part time jobs, which pay minimum wage, which has not been increased since Clinton was in power.

I just said to cancel earned income credits and have employers assume the subsidies currently being paid by American taxpayers. That would reduce welfare for the 47%, down to 14%. These large corporations have the profits to support their own workers and should not expect taxpayers do it.

Food stamps too should be cancelled as well. This has to be the most expensive program to manage because it duplicates the states' work in deciding welfare eligibility, but is paid federally. The average benefit is less than $150.00 a month. I seriously wonder how much it actually costs each month to pay out this amount, given the convoluted manner in which it's paid. This will not only reduce welfare, but also the size of government.

You have 5,000,000 jobs which are going unfilled, because workers lack the skills. Teach them the skills, pay them while they're learning. Solve two problems at once.

There are lots of ways of reducing the need for wage subsidies, none of which involve giving full time workers one cent of middle class taxpayers' money. Make the corporations pay their own damn workers.

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

Companies do not "support" workers. That's not what companies do nor are they obligated to do so. You don't get paid by how much you want or need, you get paid by how much you're work is worth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Providing training to people who don't want it nor are interested in it won't work. There are plenty of schools out there that provide financial aid. If a person wants to better themselves, they can pay for it like everybody else. Nobody is stopping them. But you have to be qualified to take many courses which I'm sure many of these people are not.

In my line of work, companies do offer free training. They will get you your license, guarantee you a job, and all you have to do is apply and sign a year contract. Guess what? They can't even get workers that way.

For some of these people, as long as government is willing to support them, there is no need for them to work. Why should they? They don't want much out of life, just a roof over their head and plenty of food in the fridge. They have no ambition to advance themselves beyond that point.

I knew a guy at a factory I where I worked that was like that. He'd did a good job and had experience, so he was approached about being a supervisor. He turned it down because he did not want the responsibility or the headache of dealing with others. He wanted to simply do his job and be left alone. Some people don't want to leave their confortable zone.

Yes, and that is A-ok... However, it doesn't apply to what is considered the over all problem being looked at or is faced by so many today. We need a strong America, and not an America that is operated like a communist or socialist utopia. We all must unite for a better America, and those who look down on the lower classes need to be challenged as to why they are doing so in every case that is found. If the lower classes are exhibiting bad behaviours, then seek to help them, and not destroy them. There is a reason behind everything.

 

[JoeMoma]

Are we talking one person or one company paying more? Then the answer would be yes the would get off welfare.


Or

Are we talking raising the national minimum wage? The answer would be no, the welfare eligibility would have to be raised..because they are still making mw and still would be poor

I'm saying the rich paying so little while making billions increases government dependence. If you are for smaller government we need the rich to pay a living wage. How to make that happen can be debated, but there is no debate the Walton's paying so little increases government dependence. How "conservatives" can applaud them for increasing the size of government I have no clue. If we had lots of good paying jobs with good benefits people could be more independent and government would shrink. We'd have no obamacare if companies were giving good benefits.

Wal Mart is around $10-11 an hour to start right now, that is PLENTY as a beginning wage. Figure that out. $10 an hour times 2080 hours a year is obviously $20,080. That is low enough that there will be no income tax withholding and if you have kids and such, that's your fault, don't have kids you can't afford.

In real dollars the minimum wage has always been historically around $10 an hour. Need more money? Get a better job.

. Ok, for how long should a person doing a job be paid that minimum wage per hour ? You say need more money, get a better job right, but I say is there no raises from the 10 per hour ever ? What about companies that want to exploit their labor forces, and therefore they do this by trying not to give them a raise (profit sharing), and therefore they are attempting to work people by their mentalities, instead of working them by what they bring to the table as a whole person ? Then what about when a corporation does such a thing, and then turns to the government to help the employees it is screwing over ? Talk about profiting in everyway possible, and then having the taxpayer subsidize them and their employees while they make billions ? Wow.

Until that person performs at a level that is worth more than minimum wage.

. But, but, but there was someone here that said there will be no raises, as companies aren't obligated to ever give raises... What to do, what to do ?

Most businesses I know about will give a small raise after the employee has worked an introductory/probationary period. That being said, bagging groceries will not earn much more than minimum. A promotion or job change to more challenging responsibilities will be needed to get a significant pay raise.

 

[hadit]

You are the one promoting big government! Are you too stupid to realize the lies you are telling?

You seem to be the stupid one. While making billions of dollars the Walton's are paying so little that employees are on welfare. Welfare increases government dependence. As long as the rich continue to pay so little the government grows. To make it worse all this inequality slows the economy.

They will always be on welfare no matter what the National minimum wage is.

If they were making more they could not collect welfare. Why do you want the wealthy creating more government dependence?

Are we talking one person or one company paying more? Then the answer would be yes the would get off welfare.


Or

Are we talking raising the national minimum wage? The answer would be no, the welfare eligibility would have to be raised..because they are still making mw and still would be poor

I'm saying the rich paying so little while making billions increases government dependence. If you are for smaller government we need the rich to pay a living wage. How to make that happen can be debated, but there is no debate the Walton's paying so little increases government dependence. How "conservatives" can applaud them for increasing the size of government I have no clue. If we had lots of good paying jobs with good benefits people could be more independent and government would shrink. We'd have no obamacare if companies were giving good benefits.

Do you voluntarily pay more for something than you have to? Consumer desires to pay as little as possible make Walmart possible, and if you force them to pay more, they have to raise prices, because their profit margin is too small to absorb much. End of story.

 

[JoeB131]

So McDonald's doesn't need a CEO?

Distributing the CEO's salary to all the low wage earners at the McDonald's franchises would make little impact on their salaries. Probably less than a nickel an hour.

Do they need a CEO? Yes. Do they need one who makes 8 figures while the working folks have to go on welfare to make ends meet? Not so much.

 

[JoeB131]

The CEOs do nothing? Then how come you don't eat at Henry's, lumbs or sambos any more?

Damn Joe you stupid

There was one in wheeling Illinois

Well, no one eats at Sambos anymore because they had a racist name... They also don't eat at "McHitlers".

 

[JoeMoma]

We're not talking about the unemployed. We're talking about people who have a full time job or multiple part time jobs, which pay minimum wage, which has not been increased since Clinton was in power.

I just said to cancel earned income credits and have employers assume the subsidies currently being paid by American taxpayers. That would reduce welfare for the 47%, down to 14%. These large corporations have the profits to support their own workers and should not expect taxpayers do it.

Food stamps too should be cancelled as well. This has to be the most expensive program to manage because it duplicates the states' work in deciding welfare eligibility, but is paid federally. The average benefit is less than $150.00 a month. I seriously wonder how much it actually costs each month to pay out this amount, given the convoluted manner in which it's paid. This will not only reduce welfare, but also the size of government.

You have 5,000,000 jobs which are going unfilled, because workers lack the skills. Teach them the skills, pay them while they're learning. Solve two problems at once.

There are lots of ways of reducing the need for wage subsidies, none of which involve giving full time workers one cent of middle class taxpayers' money. Make the corporations pay their own damn workers.

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

Companies do not "support" workers. That's not what companies do nor are they obligated to do so. You don't get paid by how much you want or need, you get paid by how much you're work is worth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Providing training to people who don't want it nor are interested in it won't work. There are plenty of schools out there that provide financial aid. If a person wants to better themselves, they can pay for it like everybody else. Nobody is stopping them. But you have to be qualified to take many courses which I'm sure many of these people are not.

In my line of work, companies do offer free training. They will get you your license, guarantee you a job, and all you have to do is apply and sign a year contract. Guess what? They can't even get workers that way.

For some of these people, as long as government is willing to support them, there is no need for them to work. Why should they? They don't want much out of life, just a roof over their head and plenty of food in the fridge. They have no ambition to advance themselves beyond that point.

I knew a guy at a factory I where I worked that was like that. He'd did a good job and had experience, so he was approached about being a supervisor. He turned it down because he did not want the responsibility or the headache of dealing with others. He wanted to simply do his job and be left alone. Some people don't want to leave their confortable zone.

Yes, and that is A-ok... However, it doesn't apply to what is considered the over all problem being looked at or is faced by so many today. We need a strong America, and not an America that is operated like a communist or socialist utopia. We all must unite for a better America, and those who look down on the lower classes need to be challenged as to why they are doing so in every case that is found. If the lower classes are exhibiting bad behaviours, then seek to help them, and not destroy them. There is a reason behind everything.

Does that mean you are against government controlled wages in the private sector?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do they need a CEO? Yes. Do they need one who makes 8 figures while the working folks have to go on welfare to make ends meet? Not so much.

If McDonald's doesn't pay that CEO that kind of money, their competitors will, and more than likely find a way to take customers from McDonald's.

 

[Brain357]

You seem to be the stupid one. While making billions of dollars the Walton's are paying so little that employees are on welfare. Welfare increases government dependence. As long as the rich continue to pay so little the government grows. To make it worse all this inequality slows the economy.

They will always be on welfare no matter what the National minimum wage is.

If they were making more they could not collect welfare. Why do you want the wealthy creating more government dependence?

Are we talking one person or one company paying more? Then the answer would be yes the would get off welfare.


Or

Are we talking raising the national minimum wage? The answer would be no, the welfare eligibility would have to be raised..because they are still making mw and still would be poor

I'm saying the rich paying so little while making billions increases government dependence. If you are for smaller government we need the rich to pay a living wage. How to make that happen can be debated, but there is no debate the Walton's paying so little increases government dependence. How "conservatives" can applaud them for increasing the size of government I have no clue. If we had lots of good paying jobs with good benefits people could be more independent and government would shrink. We'd have no obamacare if companies were giving good benefits.

Do you voluntarily pay more for something than you have to? Consumer desires to pay as little as possible make Walmart possible, and if you force them to pay more, they have to raise prices, because their profit margin is too small to absorb much. End of story.

They can afford to pay more. The Walton's all get billions not to work. The execs all get millions. There is plenty of money. Costco does fine paying better wages.