In other words, the private profits of Walmart are being subsidized by the public funds from American taxpayers.
Why don't you advocate removing those public fund subsidies, then, as opposed to trying to get those workers fired from what may be the only job they're able to get?
It boggles my mind that people's solution to their perception that workers are underpaid is to make it so that the company that pays them either has to pay them less or fire some of them in order to stay afloat.
Anyway, let's try some basic economics. For the sake of argument, let's say Walmart were to triple the pay of every non-management worker position and also pay for 100% of their health care and other similar benefits. Let's say they went even farther and decided employees got a food allowance that they could use in the grocery department to totally feed their immediate family.
I assume that would satisfy you in terms of pay levels?
Now let's look at the economic effect of those policies on the actual current employees of Walmart. Within a year, virtually none of them would be working for Walmart and virtually none of them would be getting any of those pay increases and benefits.
How is that possible? A better question would be, why is that a certainty?
Let's explore two paths:
1. Perhaps despite more than tripling their labor costs Walmart makes enough money that they can cutout all but one penny of profit and still be competitive with other stores, including new competitors that would spring up if they raised their prices. I'm guessing this would be your position, although it's pretty unlikely. But if they did, then what would happen is that all the current workers would be replaced by people who are better qualified and have more experience, but that are currently working jobs that pay just a little more than current Walmart jobs. So all the current Walmart employees get laid off or fired when their manager realizes that for what you've required him to pay workers, he can get a much better class of worker. People more responsible, who always show up on time, who pick up tasks quickly, who don't have to be micromanaged, who used to work at more demanding jobs, but are now attracted by the higher pay and awesome benefits Walmart is offering. Teenagers, senior citizens and the just-off-welfare need no longer apply to work at Walmart. They're only hiring people who are worth employing at the higher wages and benefits and that doesn't include any of the "current" Walmart workforce.
2. Walmart can't compete anymore because you just more than tripled their labor costs. They go out of business. All their employees no longer have a job. All their customers (including the laid off workers) now have to pay more for the basic products they buy every week. In the short term, some businesses that charge a little more (and generally pay their employees LESS than Walmart does, because they have lower profit margins) get more customers and hire a few more workers. Then "Walmart 2.0" following the same model as the old one gets established and drives things back to the current economic equilibrium.
Either way you slice it, the people you are supposedly advocating for lose in the short and in the long term. It's like advocating closing down factories in other countries because they're "sweat shops" that happen to be the best place to work in their area, where people in the area are practically willing to kill to get a job there, because it's so much better than anywhere else they could work. You're not exactly doing those people a favor with your advocating.
Won't someone think of the children of these poor workers you want to put out of work? Isn't the unemployment rate high enough already? Or is it more important to pretend like you care?