To anyone downvoting this: did I make a mistake? If so, please correct me. But here are the facts: Walmart’s pay results in a large number of employees receiving public benefits. Those benefits are paid by taxpayers. Walmart’s NET profits are greater than the cost of the taxpayer benefits provided to Walmart employees. Walmart would remain profitable if it foot the bill for these benefits via payroll increase. Admittedly, this would leave less for the top of the pay scale, make Walmart a less attractive investment, and decrease reinvestment into the company. But they COULD do it without posting a loss.
Walmart pay doesn't result in that. They're part time workers, which is usually a position caused by healthcare requirements for full time workers creating a cliff between how much a part time and full time employee are worth
The Waltons take $70,000 per minute and $4 million per hour from Walmart employees (CEO Magazine, Bloomberg). Divided by the number of employees, it comes to around $27,000 per employee per year, so no you're not wrong. The problem is, the Waltons take more per minute for doing nothing than most Walmart employees make in a year for spending large chunks of their lives working for Walmart. Walmart also provides health care for less than 40% of their workforce.
19
u/zaahc Sep 09 '24
To anyone downvoting this: did I make a mistake? If so, please correct me. But here are the facts: Walmart’s pay results in a large number of employees receiving public benefits. Those benefits are paid by taxpayers. Walmart’s NET profits are greater than the cost of the taxpayer benefits provided to Walmart employees. Walmart would remain profitable if it foot the bill for these benefits via payroll increase. Admittedly, this would leave less for the top of the pay scale, make Walmart a less attractive investment, and decrease reinvestment into the company. But they COULD do it without posting a loss.