It would depend on what the job entailed. Unlike a liberal, I'm not going to tell Wal-Mart it has to pay an employee anything. But if I were an executive with a company that made billionaires out of members of the founding family, I would either pay my full-time employees something above the poverty level or resign. I'd be ashamed to do otherwise:
Well, at least you're not willing to go the extra route to force employers to pay more than they do. I still think your expectations may be a little bit high. I've brought up (I think it was this thread) that I work at In-N-Out Burger, a California fast food restaurant. In-N-Out has a great cult following, known for their delicious burgers, great customer service, and their employee-friendly atmosphere. They have been praised by many Americans. I've been working part-time there for four years. Their starting wage is $10 an hour (as opposed to minimum wage for all other fast food restaurants). I make twelve. Despite showing my dedication and loyalty to the company, they have not given me full-time status, which would make me eligible for their healthcare package. In that way, they are like other fast food joints (keeping most everyone at a part-time status). They do cover their part-timers with dental and vision packages, something I've never seen before.
So here we are. I work for a company RENOWNED for their generous wages and employee-centered environment, and I'm STILL making below the poverty line and without health insurance (just like the example you gave of a Walmart employee). And the owners are riding jets to work. Is that "fair?" Is it "just?" Is it "ethical?" I feel there is nothing wrong with it, but you may completely disagree. I just think your standards may be a bit too high. Contrary to the Kingfish, we are not all kings.
I agree with that to a point. But if we as a society don't figure out a way to stop exporting high value-added jobs in industries like manufacturing and just assume we're going to support a first-world economy with cashiers and greeters we're going to be sorely disappointed.
Here we go again with the protectionist argument. Nothing is wrong with free trade and lower prices. We're not working in factories anymore, but we are working in more offices and labs. Our healthcare industry, despite its many flaws, is actually one of our biggest economic generators. We are flourishing in other, service areas which is not horrible. Isn't an office job with reasonable perks (nearly every nonunion American agrees that union perks are excessive) and a reasonable salary better than a unionist manufacturing job, with dangerous work conditions, and a pension that will bankrupt the country? Only 1% of Americans work on farms, and I hear the same romanticizing of the farmers as I've heard with the manufacturers. Yet, the life of a farmer is extremely hard work. Why can't we accept the fact that things have gotten better, and so have our jobs. Just because certain job markets remain viable even during a recession, doesn't mean we've wasted our entire economy researching, developing, and building jobs that only include cashiers, greeters, etc. There is actually an easy way for someone who is poor to rise up out of poverty. Have you ever heard of all the thriving employment markets in massage therapy, medical coding and billing, surgercial technician, etc.? The list of new, and emerging careers is neverending. And many of these technical programs are very affordable, last anywhere from 6 months-2 years, and have very favorable job placement rates.
Again, these are recession times and certain low-paying jobs will always be open. But the real agony is the massive waste by politicians who attempt to "fix" these things. Take the stimulus plan. Since the Recovery Act, there have been 416,000 new federal government jobs. But the private sector has lost 2,554,000 jobs, according to the BLS. This is despite the fact that the Obama administration promised otherwise. The wasted capital is a private loss.