Words are inadequate

Can you back any of this up?
The information comes from the article he linked to himself.

Is it better than they had before?
Yes, because before they probably didn't have a job. I would rate that as a significant improvement.

Boycott does not necessarily mean that WalMart fires people.
Either the boycott is meaningless (which is usually the case, but it makes people feel good), or the boycott is successful and cuts into the profits of the company. There are then two options for the company. Cut back on pay and benefits or cut back on workers. This is simple economics. You can't cut into the profits of a company and then expect them to pay more to their workers. All you've done is reduce the number of people employed, and increased the workload of those remaining.

Again, I would like something to back this up.
Read the article that was linked to.

Not all of those people are leaving for something better. Some of them may be leaving because the pay is so bad that they can't support their family on it.
How can they be leaving because they can't support their family on it, but not be going to something better? That doesn't make any sense.

Some of them may be leaving because there's no health insurance. Some of them may be leaving because they were treated badly. Some of them may be leaving because they were injured, on or off the job.
Well of course. I'm not saying 100% of everyone is happy or has the perfect job, but that exists everywhere, not just at Wal-Mart, and trying to single out Wal-Mart as somehow evil because they are just like everyone else (recall the that the article also indicated that Wal-Mart was about average for retailers) is just wrong.

It sounds like what you are saying is that Costco is making the marketplace worse by offering better pay, better hours, and more benefits to people who might be otherwise unable to get them and that what they should do is fire their people so they can get cheaper workers.
Nope, wrong. I was pointing out, from an economic standpoint, that CostCo stagnates the job market. I didn't say they should fire people or that their workers shouldn't get the benefits they do, as must as everyone seems to want to think that I'm heartless. Regardless of that, by holding on to workers, they hire less new workers. It's pretty simple math. If there are no new jobs, where are people entering the job market going to work?

Would you be a cashier for WalMart? Would you be a stocker for them? If you were fired from your job tomorrow, or the company went under (I'm thinking .bomb here) where would you go to support your family if the only one hiring in the area was WalMart?
Perhaps this is the fundamental difference here. This is, I'm sorry to say this so bluntly, a stupid question. I sure as hell would work at Wal-Mart if that were the only place hiring. That's painfully obvious. What am I supposed to do, not work? Vote for a democrat so we can more more to a socialist state and the rest of you could support me? Become a thief? Hell, I'd even work for Microsoft! I would be happy to have a job.

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Perhaps I have a fundamental problem with going through life and constantly looking for evil. I just can't do it, it's too depressing. I go through life being amazed at how lucky we are in this country and at this time in history. I feel very lucky to have the job I have. If I were in another job that wasn't so good, I would still be happy to have a job. Sure, I'd probably be looking for a better one, and that's not a bad thing. People should always be looking for better jobs. However, I certainly wouldn't sit there starving to death and turn my nose up at Wal-Mart saying, "I won't work there! Sure, I could pay my bills and eat and all, but they're 'the man' and 'evil' because they are so big."