| I think employers like Walmart and Amazon are unique cases. Again consider the fact that Walmart as a national grocer is able to milk the SNAP program on a national level to the tune of $14B/year. That enables them to move into a depressed area and set up shop, even at a loss, which in turn allows them to shutter the existing market incumbent(s). With the mom & pops gone and/or employee owned grocer now gone only Walmart is left. It’s using tax payer funds to out compete competition, which allows Walmart to further depress wages. It’s not like this behavior is all theoretical. In practice Walmart takes taxpayer money and turns around and lobbies congress to increase SNAP benefits so they can keep lining their pockets. Walmart takes losses in certain regions to put others out of business to become sole grocer. These losses are in part balanced and paid for by tax payer dollars at the national level. In many ways Walmart is directly responsible for lack of competition and closed stores, and despite the desperate attempt to say that is free market...it’s not free market when 1 company is subsidized by taxpayer money and the loser isn’t. You are right effort should be made into improving/fixing the economy and lives of workers...getting rid of corporate welfare for certain businesses is part of that. |
Others in this thread have pointed out that "milk the SNAP" program is a very disingenuous and deceitful statement. SNAP is a wellfare program that subsidizes food purchases and both wallmart and amazon sell groceries, and somehow people like you spin the fact that supermarkets sell groceries to sound like these companies are stealing money from the government at the expense of poor people.
And even then what's your point? Either supermakets sell food to underpriviledged people or they don't, and I really doubt that anyone would advocate that poor people should be barred from supermarkets where regular people shop.