But you assume that "what is best for him and his family" is in fact paying less.  But what about when you factor in the real costs of a store like Walmart, that pays its employees so little that the "man" in question pays higher taxes to provide living assistance to them?  Or what about the fact that the "man's" employer can't afford to pay him as much because Walmart routinely pushes payment on the products he manufactures out 120 days or more, and banks the money while he's paying interest on his bridge loans?

I think what you mean when you say "what is best for him and his family" is really what is expedient in the moment, and bad in the long term.  If that "man" was really doing "what is best for him and his family" he would be holding crony capitalism politicians responsible.  He would insist that minimum wage can support a family.  He would demonize Walmart for being the largest recipient of welfare in the country, instead of the working poor they employee.