I have rather mixed feelings reading this post.
Kurt Griffith

Kurt, “Wal-Mart is as profitable as it is by not paying their bottom tier workers enough to even shop there, and forcing them to go on public assistance. That public assistance amounts to a very real public subsidy to their profits, on the taxpayers dime.” By this logic, if means tested welfare is reduced or eliminated, wages will be driven up. This would also mean that as means tested welfare increased, people would be willing to work for less and less, such that a person receiving $100k in welfare, would volunteer at McDonald’s. Does this sound plausible?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.