Ok, since you have such a great understanding of economics, please explain to me how it's a good thing that the Walton family has more wealth than 40% of Americans (that's 129 Million Americans) combined, yet pays their full-time workers so little that they can't afford food or a place to live without welfare and foodstamps? How does it help me that my tax dollars have to subsidize Walmart employees (we're not talking about lazy drug addicts, we're talking about hardworking fulltime employees) when the company makes such huge profits? How does it help the economy when those employees can't afford to buy products that other companies manufacture and sell?
Or does it just benefit the 6 Waltons that are on Forbe's list of billionaires?
Why do you place the blame with the employer? They are merely offering a job at a market-competitive wage. Why are people willing to work for a salary that doesn't meet their needs? That they still have a hardship is not the concern nor the problem of the employer. If there wasn't a reliable source of labor at the wage they are offering then they would be forced to offer more, which is the real reason Walmart is officially raising their entry-level wage. (Which is also the reason so many companies with large low-wage headcounts are perfectly content with illegal aliens flocking over the border.)
That Walmart is profitable is a non-issue. Employees earn wages, shareholders earn profits. There is no direct connection between the two. If the employee wants a taste of the profits then they can become a shareholder. Some companies choose to share profits with employees in the form of a bonus, but that is purely at their discretion- it is in absolutely not an obligation.