It's a nice gesture, but it's a perverse incentive. These retail jobs need to pay a living wage. The philosophy that these jobs are stepping stones, not destinations, is clearly false. This perspective lets Walmart justify perpetual starter wages.
> These retail jobs need to pay a living wage.
1) A living wage for which city/state and 2) Does this include part time workers and 3) Define part time?
If that's not possible, then it should be a living wage for a nearby town including the cost(s) of transportation to/from the job.
IE, someone in an "entry level" position is someone who has partial support in their household.
Of course, there's plenty of good discussion to have about the ethics of this kind of employment. Needless to say, I prefer to spend my dollars are stores where "entry level" employees are teenagers, retirees who just want to get out of the house, and people who need an extra opportunity to make an honest life.
In many rural areas, $11 / hour is a living wage. Not comfortable, surely, but feasible.
They all subsidize low paid labor with social welfare benefits. Which is exactly what the US does as well. The US now has a more generous welfare state than Canada.
You can just about count the number of nations requiring a proper living wage on one hand out of 195.
That is a flat out lie.
And those countries all have higher tax rates to pay for their social safety net, and they actually work toward getting people to use it. Here in the US, we're actively working to gut the safety net.
Medical debt is still the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US. Our systems are abysmal:
https://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-...