>>How would you classify Walmart paying their workers so little that huge numbers qualify for government assistance?
>>
>
>I understand the question but the premise is backwards.
>
>Walmart benefits excessively from the government - either through tax policies that need streamlined, eminent domain land deals, etc. This is part of the problem with our system - too much welfare, too much public assistance, AND too much "crony capitalism". Take those away (or at least greatly reduce them) and let people and companies stand on their own two feet and then we'll talk. :)
>
>If you don't like Walmart, don't go there, and tell everyone you know not to go there. I avoid Walmart as much as possible. I hate the parking lots, I hate the long lines, most of the stores are dirty, and much of what they sell is crap/low quality.

Yep, I don't shop there and am pretty vocal about it.

>
>Walmart can pay their workers whatever they wish. Hopefully more places like Costco (which pays higher wages and has lower turnover) will grown and give Walmart a good run.
>

I actually think that businesses (at least profitable ones) shouldn't be allowed to pay full-time employees so little that they qualify for government assistance, except in special cases (such as, say, employing people with mental disabilities). When they do, essentially, the taxpayers are contributing to their profits. Think I heard that Walmart had $40B in profit last year, and that paying a living wage would cut that in half. Seems like $20B ought to be enough in profits.


>And by the way, why is it that those who criticize Walmart for paying so little, are hesitant to recognize the wages that Hobby Lobby pays? :)

I have no idea how Hobby Lobby pays. I'd never heard of them until the last couple of years; they don't operate in my part of the world. Even before the ACA case, I'd started to hear of them as a reprehensible company who treated non-Christians and non-straight folks poorly. So regardless of whether they pay well or not, I won't be shopping there.

Tamar