Dorje, you say that it's "pretty obvious" we would all be better off if people stopped shopping at WM, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as that, at least not in the short term/the world we currently live in. And your repeated jabs about those who shop there saving "$1" vs. making what you think is the moral choice, is what's called an "argumentum ad hominem" - a logical fallacy in which you try to make your argument by attacking the character of the person you're debating. (Please note, I realize you may already know about logical fallacies, but it's a public forum, so there may be those reading along who don't.)
A few thoughts I have on the subject:
First, you seem to think that if WM went out of business tomorrow, it would instantly be replaced by a bunch of mom and pop shops. Is that really the case? I suspect the biggest gains would be had by (in my area) Food Basics, and No Frills, and Price Chopper, etc. In other words, other big "budget" grocery chains, none of which give their employees enough in the way of pay and benefits to make them rich. My niece works at one, so I know!
Second, WM, like so many big corporations, will only work toward meeting minimum labour standards. The best way to effect change, IMO, is to work toward increasing those labour standards at a federal or provincial (state) level. Then conditions improve not only for WM employees, but for employees everywhere.
Third, as LalsConstant has said, life is rough at the fringes of the labour market. WM is a damn big step up from some of the places I know about where labour standards are not followed, and people are manipulated and abused. I have to wonder, in the short term, what would happen to many WM employees if the whole corporation suddenly folded, and they had to find other jobs. How many of them would be pushed into jobs where they had no workers compensation/disability coverage, weren't paid minimum wage, etc, but were afraid to speak up because "they need the job."
Note #1 about my third point. It's emotional for me - there's a young woman I've known through work for a couple of years now, who can only find work in these sweatshop kind of places, and constantly updates me on the egregious things her employer does. She doesn't seem to feel she has other choices, and won't even consider challenging them legally, in part because she needs the money, and in part because if they go under, all her friends will also be out of a job. I, in turn, actively encourage her to look for work at least at WM, or McD's, or some other place where a certain level of protection and compliance is standard. Truly, a WM job would be a big step up for her. Which is sad.
Note #2 about my third point. I'm aware this last point falls into the category of "fallacy of the slippery slope," where an argument is countered by the suggestion that the proposed solution could lead to an even worse outcome down the road. We all tend to fall back on these logical fallacies at times :-)
My final point, as my work brings me into contact with quite a few low income people, is that there are a lot of people who really rely on the low prices at WM, not because they're greedy but because their finances hang by a thread. Your "locally owned businesses that pay their employees a fair wage" would also likely have higher prices. That might benefit the employees, but not the very low income people who need to stretch their $1 as far as it can possibly go.
Look, I'm not actually arguing that WM is a positive force in the community and that we should all flock there to shop because it will change the world for the better. But I do think the debate is a bit more nuanced than you have implied, and that your argument - while laudable - presupposes an ideal future where the whole structure of consumer options will change. That's about as likely to happen as for the practice of tipping to be abolished - an argument for another time ;-)
