>A concrete example: when people say that Walmart is subsidized by taxpayers, what they mean is that Walmart can employ hundreds of thousands at below-subsistence wages only because the taxpayers will provide for their employees so that they can afford basic necessities.

This is a completely ridiculous assertion because if Walmart didn't employ these people, then taxpayers then they would be required to be subsidized by the taxpayer even more. Focusing on wages is missing the point. The problem isn't that people aren't being paid enough because America has the richest residents in the world, excluding tax-haven countries. The problem that housing and healthcare costs are too high, both of which are controlled by policymakers that refuse to understand how incentives work. Even if you could magically squeeze higher wages from Walmart profits without destroying the economy, most of these wages would go towards these government-protected rent seekers. See housing in the Bay Area as the most obvious example of this.

It's also odd to single out Walmart, just because they happen to occupy a space that employs a lot of lower-income workers. 100% of Jane Street makes well above a living wage. That doesn't make Jane Street a more virtuous company than Walmart or any less responsible for people's welfare.