I’m not sure if I understand what you’re suggesting. As I understand it, the argument isn’t that Walmart is literally getting subsidies. It’s just that Walmart employees are getting welfare, so Walmart doesn’t have to pay to support them, reducing Walmart’s costs hypothetically compared to an equivalent company which paid their workers a better wage.
So if you created a company which provided as good of working conditions as possible, your employees wouldn’t need welfare, so you wouldn’t be benefiting from the “subsidies”. Also, your costs would go up, so you’d be more likely to go out of business than Walmart.
I am suggesting to give people exactly the same money that Walmart is giving them (so the company benefits from the subsidies). But treat them well, and actually make them spend an hour or more each working day getting better education (during working hours), or something similar that will improve their lives in long term.
Such an option would be a strict improvement against Walmart. Those who have better options available are simply not our target group. We are trying to improve the lives of those who currently work cheaply for Walmart.
Such an option would be a strict improvement against Walmart.
No it wouldn’t. Unless you can manage a supply chain with the skill Walmart does, it would fail to provide the key service Walmart does; being a low-cost, wide variety retailer.
Even if you could do everything else Walmart did (unlikely), your labour costs would be >10% higher, and your prices accordingly higher. As such, your sales would be lower, and your customers less well off.
It might be a kaldor-hicks improvement. But it would not be a strict improvement.
I’m not sure if I understand what you’re suggesting. As I understand it, the argument isn’t that Walmart is literally getting subsidies. It’s just that Walmart employees are getting welfare, so Walmart doesn’t have to pay to support them, reducing Walmart’s costs hypothetically compared to an equivalent company which paid their workers a better wage.
So if you created a company which provided as good of working conditions as possible, your employees wouldn’t need welfare, so you wouldn’t be benefiting from the “subsidies”. Also, your costs would go up, so you’d be more likely to go out of business than Walmart.
I am suggesting to give people exactly the same money that Walmart is giving them (so the company benefits from the subsidies). But treat them well, and actually make them spend an hour or more each working day getting better education (during working hours), or something similar that will improve their lives in long term.
Such an option would be a strict improvement against Walmart. Those who have better options available are simply not our target group. We are trying to improve the lives of those who currently work cheaply for Walmart.
Where would this money come from?
No it wouldn’t. Unless you can manage a supply chain with the skill Walmart does, it would fail to provide the key service Walmart does; being a low-cost, wide variety retailer.
Even if you could do everything else Walmart did (unlikely), your labour costs would be >10% higher, and your prices accordingly higher. As such, your sales would be lower, and your customers less well off.
It might be a kaldor-hicks improvement. But it would not be a strict improvement.