[ams6110]

If Wal-Mart had to pay a "living wage" (and who defines what that is? Certainly not the worker.) they would not exist. You may think that's good, or bad, but most of the Wal-Mart jobs would not exist at all if they were forced to pay an artificially high wage to their employees.

[artsrc]

> and who defines what that is?

In Australia in the past there was a national industrial court that did this. In Germany regular courts did something similar. Courts are expensive, so why not use a computer program from MIT:

http://livingwage.mit.edu

> most of the Wal-Mart jobs would not exist at all if they were forced to pay an artificially high wage to their employees

People would still buy things. Something like this happens:

> With minimum wage laws, the increased costs are passed to employers who in turn charge consumers higher prices if possible. Faced with higher prices, consumers purchase fewer goods thus leading to a redistribution ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage#Impact

> forced to pay an artificially high wage

And who says the wage is artificially high? Maybe it would be the market rate if market power was more equal.

[epmatsw]

Isn't it by definition artificially high if you have to enact a law to enforce it? I mean, if it wasn't artificial, that would already be the wage...

[artsrc]

By artificial I mean "different from a market outcome".

There is quite clearly an asymmetry in information and market power between Wal-Mart and individual employees.

This will inevitably lead to artificially low wages.

So raising them with a law will return them to a free market level, where free market implies complete information, interchangeable goods and services, and lack of market power

[reader5000]

There's no such thing as an "artificially high" wage. If a union can demand higher wages then those are the natural wages.