Although the feeling is far from universal, a vocal minority of Americans despise Wal-Mart. Chief among them is author Barbara Ehrenreich, the doyenne of defeatists who, in such uplifting titles as Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America and Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream, makes a career out of finding the black cloud that surrounds every silver lining.

In a debate hosted by Slate, scholar Jason Furman attempts to inject some elementary understanding of economics into Mistress Ehrenreich’s dark world:

I live near a Best Buy, the Wal-Mart of electronics stores. Directly across the street is Stereo Exchange, a boutique outfit with high-end equipment that is consistently rated the best stereo store in New York. Best Buy has a great selection and it’s pretty cheap, but don’t expect the salespeople to know the difference between a plasma TV and an LCD TV—if you manage to attract their attention in the first place. Stereo Exchange has several fawning and knowledgeable staff members, typically serving the one or two customers in the store at any given moment.

I assume that Stereo Exchange pays its staff a lot more than Best Buy does. But this doesn’t make Best Buy a bad company or prove that it exploits its workers. No one would say that Wal-Mart exploits its workers because they’re paid less than doctors. Nor would anyone say that Wal-Mart is a terrific company because it pays its employees a lot more than McDonalds does.

Now imagine that Best Buys across the country were replaced by Stereo Exchanges. We would have more “good jobs” and fewer “bad jobs.” The average wage in the electronics retail sector would go up. But where would all the former Best Buy workers go? Most of them wouldn’t work at Stereo Exchange. Maybe some would take a pay cut and work at McDonalds. Maybe others would get lucky and find this was just the prod they needed to find a better job. It’s hardly obvious this would be an improvement.

...but there wouldn’t be any more ugly Wal-Mart boxes dotting the landscape! And I suspect that elitist aesthetics—rather than a craving for so-called “economic justice”—is behind the latte left’s continued assault on Wal-Mart.

After all, how do you define economic justice? If a company has $20,000 each month to spend on salaries, it can hire 5 people at $4,000/month or 10 people at $2,000/month. Is a higher salary better if fewer people are employed? I guess that depends on whether you’re one of the 5 people who would get a raise or one of the 5 people who would lose their jobs if the company decided to double salaries.

By decrying the salaries paid by Wal-Mart, the Barbara Ehrenreichs of the world seem to be arguing for less employment, not more. Where’s the justice in that?