Not always, but usually the case with companies like Walmart that pay their employees a substandard wage. There's an economic school of thought which says the taxpayer is subsidizing that company's workforce because they don't pay adequately, therefore their labor depends on housing and food assistance from the government to sustain them.

I disagree. I'm sure there are cases where it applies. But business is far too dynamic for this to apply across the board. For example think about manufacturing where labour is replaced by machines. If people stop buying the product, profits go - which has nothing to do with unpaid labour (unless you are machines should be paid for their labour).

as in the profit is usually made via unpaid labor? that is often the case, and if it's not the case, we are usually still talking about some exploitation of labor

Let's dig a bit deeper. What is profit? It is money paid by customers. We are duped if someone makes a profit, are we? Profit compensates the seller or manufacturer for his risk? Profit is stolen money by underpaying labour? Plus overpricing customers, plus underpaying suppliers? Plus avoidance of tax paying? Plus taking advantage of everybody who isn't in a position to bribe back? No! It is the reward The Lord grants to the true believers! So sayeth The Lord! Problem solved. At least when you are a member of the Anglo-Saxon-Commerce-Ideology.