|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
2432 days ago
|
|
The implicit premise of such arguments is that every WalMart (etc.) worker receiving benefits; would be employed at a party disqualifying them from public benefits if not for their present employer. This is quite implausible, of course, which is why it's never explicitly argued, but the entire criticism falls apart without that assumption. |
|
It's interesting you take the position that Walmart is helpless to pay its workers more, as if they were some mom and pop operation.