Dear Economist, My newly-wedded wife and I are deeply in love.There is, however, one issue that threatens the happiness of our marriage.I absolutely insist on shopping at Walmart.My wife, meanwhile, would rather avoid Walmart at all costs. I have recently tried to convince her that not only does Walmart offer the lowest prices known to man, but that the chain is also a force for good--lower prices mean better standards of living for all consumers, increased global trade means a tighter-knit  international community, and efficient operations translate into higher productivity growth for the economy.My wife complains about poor labour policies, the "fact" that Walmart squeezes suppliers, and that it puts local shops out of business. Who is right? Will our marriage survive? Brian Gee Dear Brian, I have to agree with you about Walmart.Jason Furman, then an economist at New York University, now an adviser to President Obama, famously argued in 2005 that Walmart was unwittingly   a progressive success story.The chain's prices don't much affect me (I prefer Whole Foods) but Furman estimated that they benefited low-and-middle-income Americans to the sum of around $250 billion a year. Walmart does not pay much, so it may depress wages.Then again, it may increase wages by offering jobs to the otherwise-unemployed.Either way, the benefits of low prices to Walmart shoppers far outweigh any seemingly reasonable costs to Walmart employees.And while it is true that Walmart employees tend to be poor, the same is true of Walmart shoppers. Armed with this information you can face your wife with confidence.You are sure to win the conversation.The divorce is likely to be more argued. Economist What can be inferred from the reply letter?
Some employees accept the low pay to keep the job. Walmart appeals to only poor consumers and poor employees. Employees suffer from Walmart's low prices more than consumers. Jason Furman, a New York University economist, spoke highly of Walmart.