I mean, they're not doing it for the American economy. They're experimenting to see how it affects their short and long term profits.
Why do i believe they're not helping the American economy? Because firstly, that is not what they legally holden to (ie, the stock holders). Secondly, and most importantly, Walmart is costing the country a lot by not paying their workers a living wage. So a job at walmart means another person on government social aid program(s).
> So a job at walmart means another person on government social aid program(s)
As opposed to a person with no job (at Walmart or otherwise) who would then not be on said programs?
That is, you are assuming that if Walmart paid more it would still have just as many employees. This assumption is not obviously true, and is likely false.
I'm assuming exactly what i said. A job at walmart means another person on government aid, which is obviously (mostly) true.
By (loose) definition, non-living wage employment results in needing assistance - ie government assistance. Whether you agree with it or not is another story.
I'm not saying Walmart shouldn't exist because employees are on government assistance. I'm saying that Walmart is profiting off of this assistance.
Why do i believe they're not helping the American economy? Because firstly, that is not what they legally holden to (ie, the stock holders). Secondly, and most importantly, Walmart is costing the country a lot by not paying their workers a living wage. So a job at walmart means another person on government social aid program(s).