All I see is how a certain corporation appears to benefit, as one of the largest employers in the country, by providing part-time employment to a portion of the absolutely massive pool of low-skilled, border-line unemployable labor which happens to exist in America today and which also happens to be subsidized by the government. I fail to see how those people would not otherwise need to be fully supported by the social welfare system if it were not for this employment, and I fail to see how it is Walmart's fault that there aren't other employers providing part-time jobs for these people to fill the gap. Maybe one could say they are taking advantage, but either way I don't see how this works as a counterpoint, or how it shows that "Capital" is draining on social welfare systems... Just the opposite.
In this scenario, in America, the reason a social welfare subsidy exists at all is because the supply of capital offered through jobs to low-skilled labor is smaller than the supply low-skilled people. Without this excess of low-skilled people, after all, there would be no need for such a subsidy.
From the perspective of the social welfare system, the part-time, low-skilled employment (capital) Walmart is able to provide to people who otherwise, ostensibly, would be unemployed actually reduces the burden (created by these people) on the welfare system. Without those part-time jobs, the subsidy these people would need in order to live would be even greater. No?
I guess your perspective is that somehow the social welfare system is subsidizing Walmart's labor force, and, if I'm being generous and give you the argument, that Walmart wouldn't be able to exist/profit without this low-skilled, part-time labor force, transferring the responsibility for the drain onto Walmart (Capital) NOT the people it ultimately supports, which, again, the system must support regardless of the existence of a Walmart or any other employer, so long as the people exist in the country? Is that about right?
How is the actual drain on the social welfare system not the oversupply of people? Would removing Walmart's capital improve the situation? Or is Walmart actually responsible for the increase in low-skilled labor, using its capital to demand mass immigration and creating the over-supply which they then take advantage of? Because if so, that wasn't explained when I googled "walmart subsidy."