So we both make money on our wits. That's good, I have a lot of respect in your response, although you seem to think that the employer owes his workers a living.
I am fairly well-known in the community as a well-off guy, but one that has contributed a bit as well. Of course, big boxes are bluffing. They can pay more, but would you pay more for bread or gasoline if you could avoid it?
I completely oppose the government helping businesses, as much as I oppose them dismantling business structure as in the Wagner Act.
So, what does the average big box worker contribute economically? It's a damned sight more than $13 an hour, especially after they've been there a few years and made friends among customers. Too bad only places like Costco know the value of that relationship.

Well, now we're getting somewhere, 'Sez Who.'

I think employers owe their workers exactly what they have agreed to pay them.

But as an employer, I know that if I want to keep a good worker, I'll sweeten the pot to keep them. Especially if they've gained some experience and training working with me--called 'human capital' or 'wetware' that exists, and grows, between the workers' ears. I don't want it walking out the door, especially to my competitor.

As a worker, if I've got any sense, I learn quickly that I produce more value than I get. If sales are up and orders are coming in, I'm going to bargain for more, together with my fellow workers.

The tussle back and forth is called class struggle--and I've been on both sides of it.

Not the best system, in my opinion, but it's what we got now.

Now here's an interesting point related to your dictim to 'completely oppose government helping businesses.'

I don't think such a situation exists, or ever existed, because the market is not just a relation between buyer and seller. It's really a three-sided relationship--buyer, seller and cop. The market requires the state and vice versa, even for the simple things like standard weights and measures, or courts so you can sue to get paid.

The Ohio valley where I grew up in Western PA and West Virginia had only barter among Native tribes until George Washington and General Broadhead and their troops (the state) showed up, built and secured Fort Pitt and the Fort at Beavertown from the French fur traders, and had their troops blaze the 'Broadhead Road' through the wilderness. My penniless Scots-Irish ancestors showed up 5 or 10 years later on those 'roads' and a few generations later, my Dad's truck and car repair garage was at a crossroads on that Broadhead Road, and his business wouldn't have existed a day without it, and a thousand other 'hidden subsidies' that make up the warp and woof of the market economy.

so it's not whether government assists business; it's how its done, and with what interests in mind. What values are built into their policies--'High Road' sustainability or 'Low Road' race-to-the bottom destruction, of long-term wealth creation instead of short-term 'maximum profit'.

These are not 'iron laws' here. We have choices to make, individually and publicly.

After all, that's why it's called POLITICAL economy, isn't it?

Not always good choices are made, for sure. I looked up all the old Land Deed and Warrants in Western PA made in General Washington's wake. Guess what they all include as a provision? 'White men only.' Free Blacks couldn't own land in Beaver county (there were only three families of free Blacks there at the time), even if they had the money.

Seems the state had an affirmative action program for white guys from day one, although we're not supposed to mention such things now that we supposedly have returned to where we only have 'colorblind' and merit' policies.

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry when people cling to these myths.

Sorry,'AP' above is me