California liberals are trembling with fear at the thought of retail chain Wal-Mart coming to town, editorializes Harley Sorensen of the SF Gate. Sorensen claims that while Wal-Mart does not break any laws, they are unethical and could ruin the California economy.

To the best of my limited knowledge, Sam Walton did not break any laws building his fantastic Wal-Mart empire, and his low-price philosophy certainly helped a lot of people. But Walton's success was ruthlessly created on the backs of fragile human beings, a good many of whom are worse off for the experience.

"Hello, Wal-Mart, good-bye, Safeway and Vons and Albertsons and Ralphs and Raley's and the other supermarket chains, and good-bye 250,000 excellent union jobs statewide."

Sorensen apparently thinks Wal-Mart is using slave labor. To him, the thought of paying employees a free market price for their labor instead of artificially inflated union wages must seem unconscionable. Indeed, he goes on to say just that.

If you're a journeyman checker at one of the supermarket chains in California, you make around $19 per hour with excellent health benefits, even if you're a part timer. That's not enough to buy a house in Northern California, but it's a living. However, the same job at Wal-Mart pays about $9 per hour, with health insurance so pricey that many employees can't afford it. That's low enough to consider living in your car.

That statement is very telling, mostly that $19 an hour is not enough to buy a house in California. Second, that Sorensen expects an entry level grocery clerk to be able to buy a house with his part time job. I don't know too many first year grocery checkers who own their own homes.

What Sorensen doesn't address is the effect that more Wal-Marts might have on the overall cost of living. Perhaps if Northern California had more discount stores, you wouldn't need to make $19 an hour to earn a living. In flyover country, there are many hard working Americans who eke out a living on $9 to $12 an hour wages. They do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, and Sorensen's attitude that their pay is meager and damaging is insulting.

In the end, it comes down to simple economics. On one side, you have a retailer with an hours worth or work an $9 to spend. On the other, you have a worker with an hours worth of time and a desire to earn that $9. The relationship is mutually beneficial. Sure, the retailer would rather pay less and the employee would rather earn more. But that balance should be left up to the free market, and not unions and artificial wage inflation.