(Source: Huffington Post)
I decided to do some simple research on this issue, and I found something more than interesting: when we talk about Walmart costing taxpayers, we often make the dissociation that somehow we are tax-payers and that Walmart is not -- that somehow, they are stealing from us.
But shaking that strange and untrue idea off, I decided to see how much Walmart actually paid in corporate taxes. The answer: almost $8 billion in 2012.
(Source: USA Today)
The interesting twist on this, however, is that economic theory puts forth that no company, no business, no corporation actually pays taxes -- the people who support those businesses do, through purchase prices which include the tax burden in them, otherwise known as paying hidden taxes at the register. When we shop at one of these establishments, included in the price of our box of landfill-bulk-enhancing disposable diapers is:
- cost of inputs such as materials and energy
- worker wages
- low-income government subsidies
- other government taxes used for anything from national defense to Walmart subsidies
- Walmart profits
...all rolled into one. So, is Walmart really at fault here?
Let's take a look at the labor supply and demand curve here for a second: if a wage is low, what does it tell us about that labor market? Is the boss being a jerk for not paying more? Possibly, you could argue that. But let's say you were hiring someone to change yours tires. You go to three garages to check the prices, one is $40, a second is $50, a third is $60. Which one do you choose if you have 2 minutes to make a decision, and all 3 promise to simply change your tires?
The reason wages are low is because Walmart has an adequate and seemingly inexhaustible supply of similarly skilled people willing to work at the same offered low rate. And why are more people willing to take jobs at these low wages? Because they have nothing better available to them, most likely because their particular skill set is high in supply, and low in demand -- just like the labor market for Walmart cashiers.
People don't shop at Walmart for the cheery helpers, they go there for one reason -- because they want as much as possible: quickly, easily, and cheaply. That's it. Nobody talks about how the Walmart greeter didn't remember their name, nobody even cares, in fact they expect bad, unhappy service with a frown, because that's the trade-off for their cheap-stuff quick-fix. They just want their stuff, no hassle or frill. (Note: the author almost never shops at Walmart, because he does care about personal service and happy help, but clearly is not in the majority, and Walmart thrives).
My argument here is that while, yes, tax-payers are footing the bill for low-paid workers in living expense subsidies, not only is neither the wage market nor Walmart at fault for this -- the workers must increase their skill set to become less replaceable and more highly valued to merit a higher wage in the market, through whatever means, school or training, government or private, it does not matter -- but Walmart is without a doubt covering its part of the taxes required to pay these government subsidies, and thus, where is the blame?
Further, this form of government subsidy is just, if undesired, and Walmart should not be forced against its will to pay an unduly high wage for labor it does not value more than the wage it is prepared to pay -- Walmart as a private business is not responsible for the low education and low skill sets of the low wage workers applying for jobs they desperately need. If anyone is responsible for this, it is the government who runs an effective monopoly on education -- a monopoly whose efficacy has been questioned for decades, but which economically-left-leaning interest groups and lobbies continue to defend. And why shouldn't they? Economic theory and the nature of incentive easily illustrates that it would not be in the interest of those who depend on the poor for votes and jobs (those in the employ of the government to help the poor), to undermine and cure the poor of their ailment. (What doctor has as true incentive your cure, when his income is generated by your sickness?) Think of all the career-panderers who would be out of a job if that happened.
