Maybe they would. If there were no gov’t subsidies, then people obviously couldn’t get by on a Walmart salary. So they’d have to look elsewhere. This is largely a government created problem. The welfare “hammock” incentives business to keep wages low.
“If there were no gov’t subsidies, then people obviously couldn’t get by on a Walmart salary. “
That hardly follows. SOME people couldn’t get by. Many could. The government pays subsidies to many who don’t need them in any sensible sense.
” Maybe they would. If there were no gov’t subsidies, then people obviously couldn’t get by on a Walmart salary. So they’d have to look elsewhere. This is largely a government created problem. The welfare “hammock” incentives business to keep wages low.”
So what you are saying is that Wally World would have to react to market forces in order to recruit and retain qualified staff. Just as they are right now, since the market allows them to retain sufficiently skilled staff for a lower price.
The article is not advocating what either you or I are saying, though. The article its not suggesting that subsidies be cut in order for the market to find a new equilibrium. It is advocating for a higher government imposed salary. From the article:
“The chairman of the committee who produced the report, Rep. George Miller, has been working to sponsor legislation that would increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10, arguing that this boost could pull Wal-Mart workers off these public-assistance programs, as well as others employees who suffer the same problems. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 and applies to the 31 states that do not mandate a higher one.”
So are you suggesting that the minimum wage be increased to $10.10 per hour?
Sigh
Walmart pays what the market dictates
They have the lowest turnover of entry level people because wages are competitive and chance for advancement is high