Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does Walmart's average wage compare to competitors like Amazon or Target?
Executive Summary
Walmart's reported average hourly pay sits in a mid-single-digit to mid-teen range depending on the dataset, and it generally trails newer minimum-wage commitments from Amazon and some Target/Costco postings while offering other forms of compensation and advancement that complicate straight wage-for-wage comparisons. Reported figures in the supplied analyses show Walmart averages from roughly $14.26 to $16.83 per hour, starting wages cited as low as $11 in older reporting, while Amazon and Target are described with minimums in the $15–$18+ range; these differences reflect varying publication dates, pay definitions (starting wage vs. average total compensation), and benefits that some outlets treat as part of “compensation” rather than base pay [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the headline numbers conflict — different definitions and dates matter
The comparisons in the supplied analyses conflict because sources use different wage metrics and publication dates, producing different headline numbers and impressions. One analysis reports Walmart field associates at an average base of $14.26 with total compensation and benefits equal to $19.31 per hour, and calls out an older $11 starting wage contrasted with Target’s then-$13 and Amazon’s then-$15 starting figures; that piece also emphasizes advancement programs and a college benefit [1] [4]. Another analysis cites Walmart’s average at $16.25 and compares Amazon’s advertised minimums of $18 to $22.50 at some locations, Target at $15, and Costco at $16, a snapshot that reflects retail wage increases by late 2021 (p1_s2, 2021-12-16). A PayScale-derived average of $16.83 appears in another analysis without competitor breakouts, showing yet another data point that can shift depending on the dataset and methodology [3]. The key context is that “average wage,” “starting wage,” and “total compensation” are not interchangeable, and wage announcements from Amazon and Target in recent years target headline minimums rather than company-wide averages.
2. How benefits and advancement change the wage picture
Several supplied analyses highlight that Walmart’s benefits and advancement pathways can materially affect total pay comparisons even when base hourly rates lag rivals. One analysis notes Walmart’s total compensation and benefits averaging $19.31 per hour for full-time field associates when training, bonuses, and a $1-per-day college program are included, arguing that these elements partly offset a lower base starting wage [1] [4]. Another source contrasts hourly parity on cashier roles while pointing out that salaried roles often pay more at Target, and that Walmart may offer larger bonuses for assistant managers and managers — a distinction that skews average compensation higher for certain job classes at Walmart [5]. These observations indicate that employers use wage floor announcements for PR while total worker compensation and career-track pay progression are critical to a full comparison [1] [5].
3. Competitors’ headline minimums and geographic variability
The supplied materials show that Amazon and Target have pushed higher headline minimums in recent years, which changes the competitive landscape for entry-level recruitment. One analysis summarizes Amazon’s advertised $18 minimum (and higher in some locales up to $22.50), Target’s $15 minimum, and Costco’s $16 minimum as of late 2021, portraying a market where national retail minimums have risen and vary by company and location (p1_s2, 2021-12-16). These are floor wages, often applied to new hires and vary by state and local labor markets; they do not directly translate into company-wide averages. The existence of geographic premium pay, signing bonuses, and role-specific differentials means a store-level comparison can produce different winners depending on city, state, and role mix [2].
4. Data gaps, paywalls, and methodological limits to direct comparison
The supplied materials include acknowledgments of data limitations and paywalls that prevent definitive comparisons. One analysis cites PayScale’s $16.83 figure but notes that PayScale’s reporting does not directly compare Walmart to Amazon or Target without further dataset access [3]. Other analyses rely on media roundups or retailer announcements that emphasize starting wages or media-friendly minimums but do not reconcile those with median or mean wages across all roles and geographies, leaving gaps for researchers seeking apples-to-apples comparisons [6]. The takeaway is that methodology matters: mean vs. median, base pay vs. total compensation, and the skew introduced by higher-paid managerial/salaried roles all change which company appears to pay more on average.
5. What to watch next — announcements, regional pay, and role mix
To resolve who truly pays more on average, the decisive evidence would be recent, company-level pay distributions and government wage statistics broken down by role and location; the supplied analyses recommend watching corporate wage announcements and public data releases. The snapshots here show Walmart in a mid-teens average range with lower historical starting wages but stronger claims for total compensation and advancement [1] [3], while Amazon and Target have pushed higher headline minimums that affect entry-level comparisons [2]. Evaluating which employer “pays more” therefore requires deciding whether the question targets starting hourly pay, company-wide average/hourly including benefits, or median pay for comparable roles — each yields a different lead company in the supplied analyses [1] [2] [5].