Workers at top 20 US low-wage firms rely on public assistance, report says

[marmar]

(Guardian) Many workers at some of the largest US corporations have no choice but to rely on healthcare and food assistance because of low wages, even as CEO compensation continues to grow, according to a new report released Wednesday.

The report, published by the Institute of Policy Studies, focuses on 20 of the S&P 500 corporations that have primarily US-based workforces and report the lowest median wages of the group.

Collectively, this “Low-Wage 20” employs 6.7 million people in the US. The median pay at a majority (75%) of the companies is lower than the income minimum for a family of three to be eligible for Medicaid in most states. At 13 of the companies, median pay was also lower than the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program income threshold for a family of three.

Nearly a quarter of Walmart employees (29.3%) and half of Amazon workers (48.4%) in the Nevada – which collects Medicaid enrollment numbers among employees at large companies – were on Medicaid in 2024, according to the report. ............................(more)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/04/workers-medicaid-snap-low-pay

[RainCaster]

1. Meanwhile, the CxOs make out like bandits

Bezos and the Waltons have no pride in providing for their employees. They want us to pay for their welfare.

[Borogove]

2. I was surprised to see Costco at #5 on the list.

[eShirl]

3. what if companies had to repay for public assistance to their employees

before dividends could be paid out

[UpInArms]

4. Taxpayers subsidize CEO compensation

rewarding them for underpaying those who actually earn their wages, but do not receive adequate pay and benefits

[leftstreet]

5. USA! USA! USA!

DURec

[MaineBlueBear]

6. The hidden cost of low prices

Our tax dollars are subsidizing this nonsense. Corporations are the real welfare queens but our controlled media will never frame it like that.

[gulliver]

7. This is a core Dem issue being sold badly, imo

This article is about Medicaid. So it's a National Health Care issue in disguise. Framing it as an inequality issue or, worse, a "public assistance" drain is very ineffective, imo. It's taking what should be a winning argument and arguing it in the weakest possible way. It feels emotionally strong for some, but its persuasive appeal peaks and stalls far below a majority. It keeps us stuck.

What we want is national health care, fair pay, and affordability. Leave fairness out of it. Leave so-called inequality out of it. Leave any scent of redistribution out of it. Those are beside the point and make otherwise persuadable people walk. We want what we want, and we want everyone to be on board with us. Sell the upsides, imo, not the gripes. You catch more flies with honey.