[gizmo385]

> This is a completely ridiculous assertion because if Walmart didn't employ these people, then taxpayers then they would be required to be subsidized by the taxpayer even more.

That's a massive false dichotomy. There are options are vastly more options beyond "Walmart employs these people" and "Walmart doesn't employe these people". For example, Walmart could just... pay them more.

> Even if you could magically squeeze higher wages from Walmart profits without destroying the economy, most of these wages would go towards these government-protected rent seekers.

Walmart pays out billions in dividends every year and makes billions in profit. Asking that their business actually be sustainable and not rely on employee exploitation shouldn't be some bold proposal and if Walmart is incapable of existing without relying on its employees being on government assistance, then maybe Walmart shouldn't exist at all.