Walmart

Below are a few articles that document the cost of employers, such as Walmart, McDonalds and Disney, paying employees starvation wages.

These employees receive government subsidies that make up for the shortfall of their starvation wages.

The effect of these subsidies is a massive transfer of wealth, i.e., from those bearing the brunt of the tax burden, to Walmart executives and the investor class who own shares of stock in the company.

Because we, the taxpayers, are paying bills that are rightfully theirs, the investor class and executives who own the company.

The market, by definition, would not pay starvation wages; nobody could agree to a wage less than a living wage, in the absence of government subsidies.

Without these subsidies, Walmart itself would have to absorb the cost of paying its employees a living wage. Therefore, the government is justified in requiring employers to raise wages and requiring companies to provide benefits to its employees that otherwise end up being passed on to the taxpayer.

In summary, then, we can at least suggest that raising the minimum wage, amongst other policy measures that properly impose costs upon employers (e.g., living wages and medical benefits), would result in savings to the average taxpayer.

Here are a few articles addressing the issue from different perspectives:

Walmart costs taxpayers 6.2 billion in public assistance

Walmart wages result in employees need of public assistance

Low wage employers cost taxpayers $153 billion per year

No, government isn’t subsidizing Wal-Mart

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *