[asdfdsa1234]

Nearly a quarter of the US population was officially in poverty in the 1950s. Doing unskilled work as a sole breadwinner with multiple children has always pretty much meant you would live in "poverty."

On a side note, a family of four making $20,000 will qualify for an additional $10,000 in EBT and EITC as well as free healthcare (Medicaid), bringing the wages paid by Walmart and Costco much closer together.

[seanmcdirmid]

This. WalMart basically receives a huge public subsidy to underpay their employees in the form of welfare costs. Minimum wage and benefit laws try and shift those costs back to the employer.

[philwelch]

And if Wal-Mart didn't exist, these people would have no jobs and require even more public assistance.

[seanmcdirmid]

True, but we (society) wouldn't be much worse off than we are now. If Wal-Mart didn't exist, something else would exist to fill the gap, supply and demand must reach an equilibrium.

We should focus on helping people become self sustainable, not perpetually on the dole. Wal-Mart doesn't help here.

[philwelch]

If it wasn't for Wal-Mart, there would be a Wal-Mart shaped niche in the economy and whatever filled it would look a lot like Wal-Mart.

[tomjen3]

Well society could also refuse to offer those services, it isn't fair to blame WallMart for not paying their employees so they can afford to buy a good we have decided that they should enjoy.

[walshemj]

yes your quite right in the UK I have no problem with paying for the NHS et all I do have a problem with subsidizing crap employers "jumped up fucking caterers" as John Clese memorably called them.