Walmart Fact Checks The New York Times, River Of Red Ink Ensues

Tyler Durden's picture

2014 has not been kind to Walmart: as we have covered every earnings release this year, the largest corporate entity in the world by employees (second only to the US Dept of Defense and the Chinese army) has had to find repeated excuses why its revenues and earnings have consistently missed, and why its traffic keeps declining, most recently in "Walmart Misses Across The Board, Guides Lower: Blames It On Weather, Obamacare And Taxes." Actually, 2013 wasn't Walmart's year either: recall when early last year Wal-Mart revealed that "February Sales "Total Disaster", Worst Monthly Start Since 2006" only to see its operations drift lower as the company was once again impacted by both the change in US tax policy and a modest reduction in welfare handouts.

Some could say Walmart is fighting to stay relevant in a world in which only retail outlets that cater to the uber-wealthy are outperforming, while all those whose bottom line depends on the welfare of the non-1%, are suddenly finding themselves scrambling to agree with all the "recovery" propaganda,

But while the company is doing what it can to make sure the billions in shareholder wealth of the Walton family isn't impacted due to its over-reliance on cheap Chinese imports and the disappearing disposable income of the US lower/middle classes (or, as Germany would put it, leave it in the "safe hands" of the Federal Reserve) it is happy to engage in a tete-a-tete with its liberal arch nemesis, the New York Times, and specifically an article written last week by Tim Egan titled "The Corporate Daddy" in which it slams WMT's minimum wage policy.

Well, after taking endless abuse from the NYT not just here but in many other opinion pieces in the recent past, WMT decided to finally "slam" back, releasing its own fact-check of the NYT op-ed, in which it finds that most of the assertions used by the NYT are, how should one say, lacking.

In the end of the day, it is difficult to say who is right: the liberal media outlet or its arch-nemesis, and the symbol of all that the left hates about corporate America, Walmart.

Either way, now that Walmart, and its billions in fungible funding - is finally fighting back against the largely cash strapped NYT, things are about to get interesting.

From Walmart's blog:

We saw this article in The New York Times and couldn't overlook how wildly inaccurate it is, so we had some fun with it. I hope you will too.

Here are the links we mentioned in our edits:

1. Associate story re: public assistance:
2. Ed Schultz on re: public assistance:
3. Jason Furman on Walmart and the economy:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
hedgeless_horseman's picture



Shop locally, bitchezzz!!! 

It isn't that hard to understand.

Give your capital a chance to come back to you and your family.

Stop sending your capital out of town to Wal-Mart, Wall Street, and The Great Wall. 

Take this oath:

"I, ________________, do solemnly swear to never shop at Wal-Mart again, so help me God."

Omegaman2211's picture

I'm not going to swear to some non-existent being to not shop at some place that offers a lot of convenience and good prices. Sorry!

pods's picture

If Walmart could charge $5 bucks for a cup of coffee and have people go apeshit over it they certainly could toss around some more coin.


lordylord's picture


Oldwood's picture

You make me feel unsafe

tmosley's picture

Honestly, Walmart can go fuck itself.  They started playing the lobbying game in a bid to illegitimately undermine their competition.  It is an absolute discrace to the Walton name.  


Malachi Constant's picture


of the government. There, finished it for you.

stacking12321's picture

the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy

vie's picture

Not that I disagree, but there is such a thing as "negative libery".

'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must [unfortunately] depend on the restraint of others."

Right now it seems like Bankers are getting all the "liberty" they want at the expense of everyone else ...

TheRedScourge's picture

It is not within the standard meaning of liberty to use force to limit someone else in a way that infringes on their liberties. If one directly, or indirectly (i.e. through government power) does this, then they are NOT merely exercizing their liberties. Let's be clear about that.

Bangin7GramRocks's picture

The government subsidizes their payroll! Without food stamps, Medicare and the 50 other programs, it's employees would be malnourished sickly and toothless. Fuck you WalMart! As a tax payer, I want my money back.

americhinaman's picture

I'm neutral on this issue... I see your argument, but here is the other side of that.

Does the govt subsidize Walmart employee incomes?  Or does Walmart subsidize US govt welfare programs?  Walmart is a company designed to offer the lowest prices for necessity items, and that business model depends on hiring an enormous number of entry-level, unskilled workers.  I'd guess that 95% or more of Walmart workers would be otherwise unemployed and entirely on the dole.  The fact that they pay an average starting wage that's a few bucks over minimum wage is pretty impressive already.  

Then there is a small minority of those unskilled laborers, who are hard-working and skilled enough to climb the ranks to manage a department, then store, then region, and more.  I'm sure they also hire professional managers at high wages, but again that's a minority and hopefully they do the cost analysis and fire high-paid workers who don't deliver results.

Anyways, it's just an alternate view on this issue.  Perhaps Walmart provides America with necessity items at the lowest price possible (staving off inflation as best they can for the masses), while providing unskilled jobs for the masses who no longer have any other unskilled job options.

MachoMan's picture

Given that I'm in Arkansas, the money I spend at walmart ends up coming back to me in various ways...  one notable is walmart's incubator otherwise known as the university of arkansas at fayetteville...  oh, and all the other shit I get to buy because it's so much cheaper than the local scalpers.

There are some things that local producers can eat walmart's lunch, e.g. fresh produce, but most things are better purchased at the big box store or online (often cheaper and more convenient than walmart).  If you want me to buy local, then sell me on the product...  locally grown produce at a fraction of the cost of the store and a helluva lot better (and better for me)?  Sold!

thatthingcanfly's picture

I live in Arkansas too; and I refuse to shop at Walmart because I have a moral objection to its business model. The company moves into a new town, immediately begins undercutting all the smaller businesses' prices, driving them to closure. The once vibrant downtown areas cease to be the civic centers they once were. Then property values decline, because many of the (former) entrepreneurs are unemployed, and have to sell their homes and land to downsize, etc. etc. Then crime springs up where before there was none. Walmart hires some of the unemployed people they put out of business, and hilariously claims they're "creating jobs." Then they're free to raise prices, as the Walmart is the only show in town anymore.

I really don't care too much about what kind of wage the company pays its "associates." This company has destroyed many communities across the country. And people keep shopping there, because they think in the short-term, rather than the long.

Better by far to shop at the "local scalpers" MachoMan. You may have to part with a little extra cash today, but you get to keep from losing your house tomorrow.

Oldwood's picture

It doesn't matter if it is Walmart or Joe Blow, someone will sell you the rope for your own hanging if its cheap enough. We have exported all of our jobs either to China or to our domestic illegal labor contingent by simply buying the "good deal". We now have the result, but at least we are afforded the corporate devils that many rely on for their living for giving us what we asked for. Large well lit stores with massive selections and everyday low prices. The path to hell is typically well adorned, otherwise who would go there. Ever wonder why hookers dress the way they do?

MachoMan's picture

This is complete nonsense.  Just because someone lives locally doesn't mean their money stays local...  and it only benefits anything when that money is spent and turned over in the local economy.

If you want to compete as a local business, then you'll need to provide a better value.  With higher energy costs, local producers of things will become more important and can undercut imported items.  Further, a local producer may provide higher quality items than their foreign counterparts.  However, the local business must still go through the effort of doing it.  You don't just get to demand I shop in your store for the hell of it.  I see no difference between that and a welfare recipient...

thatthingcanfly's picture

Spending money at local businesses MAY NOT GUARANTEE that the money will be recycled into the local economy; but spending money at Walmart DOES GUARANTEE that your community's wealth will be exported to Bentonville.

On value, you make some good points. I have found instances where the local small businesses can actually undercut the big box stores. These cases are insufficient, however, to ensure small business survival when competing with the Walmarts out there - at least under current market conditions. But even in instances where this is not the case, I will pay slightly more for a product if it means I can avoid shopping at Walmart, because i recognize the long-term destructive consequences of the inverse. (Spend more now on consumables to save more later on my property value, to repeat my earlier example.)

The comparison of small business patronage to welfare recipients is a pathetic straw man argument, which I'm not even going to dignify with a response.

You are viewing this subject through the wrong lens.

MachoMan's picture

The comparison of small business patronage to welfare recipients is a pathetic straw man argument, which I'm not even going to dignify with a response.

And why would you have to explain yourself...

You are viewing this subject through the wrong lens.

Which lens would that be?  The one that everyone else uses?  The one I was born with?  The one that makes demands on my wallet?  I realize it's difficult for some people to fathom that they don't have all the right answers or that it may be strange not to tell others what to do, but jesus...  give me a break.

The issue is simple: you have nothing more than your own feelings to support your actions, err demands, to shop locally.  Effectively, you're asking us all to drop what we're doing and join a commune.  If everyone did as you're asking, then from where would the money come into your locale?  You may be productive, but you're at the mercy of the local community for profits and utilization.  Only consumers have to buy local, but businesses do not?  (hint: this is why mom and pop got killed, they were selling the same junk as walmart).  Yes, those magical local businesses were buying chinese shit too in order to sell to the dumb asses that are demanded to only shop at locally owned stores. 

What price is too high to buy locally?  Oh, so you're also demanding price controls/ranges?   

Again, the end game of what you're demanding is a commune...  I produce and sell locally and only local people buy my wares...  we do each others' laundry and call it an economy.  We own the shirts on our backs, but that's about the extent.  It may be great on an incredibly small scale of like-minded people, but the real world is entirely different and more complicated.

Baby Eating Dingo22's picture

How many of those minimum wage Walmart asociates are you subsidizing through entitlements you're eventually paying for come April 15 so Wally World can sell you all that "cheap" crap?

You want your kids working for 20 cents and hour and thick smog covering Arkansas so you can pretend you're saving a few bucks up front only to learn you're paying dearly on the back end?

MachoMan's picture

If you want to fight gravity, be my guest...  what you and hedgeless are each arguing about is human nature...  and taking it out on walmart.  Amazon or any other retailer could have just as easily killed mom and pop and it was inevitable to occur.  Ask yourself what value a local retailer provides if they charge more for the same good or service?

Remember kids, America's vibrant middle class was NEVER sustainable...  it was a speck on the timeline.

bh2's picture

Detroit earned its bankruptcy and ruin, which had nothing to do with outsourcing.

It was because of a dominant corporate culture of indifference to quality, indifference to innovation by competitors, indifference to stockholder interests, and (greatest of all crimes) indifference to interests of consumers who discovered they could buy far better quality from foreign competitors at comparable or lower prices. And that industry was what gave Mo-Town an equally indifferent and incompent city management.

Why GM fell is why Detroit fell. Both were corrupt to the core. The only company to survive the great market contraction without a government handout was Ford, not least because leadership of that company recognized years before what leaders of the other major companies did not -- and they took corrective action.

GM is now selling more cars in China because that's where majority auto demand is from consumers attracted to the current line of GM autos. Why many US buyers bailed out on Detroit manufacturers goes back to decades of indifference to customers. The burgeoning Chinese consumer market is a new phenomenon and Chinese customers have never (yet) had that experience. The new GM management had best maintain a laser focus on making sure that doesn't happen. Just as their major competitors always have.

Once reputation is lost, its very hard to recover. But if history is any guide, there's nothing to say GM can't also screw up the Chinese market opportunity. In the end, their fortune rests on paying attention to customer demands, whether those customers are in China, the US, or on Mars.

Detroit is an economic basket case mainly because its industrial base fell to competitors owing to generations of indifference and incompetency by inbred private (and public) leadership in Mo-Town, along with generations of fat-cattedness promoted by union leaders and their members who believed the core business model was a perpetual-motion gravy train which they were entitled to ride on first class and forever. As they did -- right up until the wheels came off.

prymythirdeye's picture

Great Comment turd.  Why don't you read some of hedgeless's posts before yapping your opinion.

PenguinMan's picture

Then you have some sort of proof, using sane and scinetific methods that God doesn't exist, including a reproducable protocol any of your peers can reproduce the same results?

Would love to see that.

Otherwise I am suggesting you are insane for attempting to believe in the nonexistence of something you cannot prove.

NotApplicable's picture

At heart, atheists are by and large the most fundamental of any religious group.

Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Everyone believes in God. It is what one believes about God. Athiests just believe God is absent. 

bonin006's picture

Then you must also believe in the flying spaghetti monster, I assume.

StychoKiller's picture

May his noodly appendages always touch you!

Oldwood's picture

One thing I learned years ago, you can't prove anything to someone who doesn't want to believe. Proof is always in the eyes of the beholder. If you want proof of the irrelevance of proof, look at our economy.

Laura Keth's picture

Support your local business.  I dare you.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater's picture

Fuck that noise, I'll go where I get the most for my $$.  Find me a place with cheaper white-box FMJ in common calibers and I'll go there.

And yes, every so often I complain to Costco that they don't have Kirkland brand bulk ammo.  If I could get Kirkland 9mm for $194/1000 I'd back up the truck.

thatthingcanfly's picture

Or, you could reload that brass for $140/1000.

People give me 9mm brass all the time. Would have gone in the trash otherwise.

Then, you wouldn't have to hold your nose and shop at big box stores.

NotApplicable's picture

As long as everyone produces more wealth than they consume, it matters little "where" your purchase dollars end up flowing, as they can return to any point within an economy.

The evil you're combating is the financialism that consumes the future today, not the location of the where these people live. I've lived within a mile of WM billionaires, and it didn't matter in the least, economically speaking.

Rootin' for Putin's picture

Shop locally is a crock.  Whether you buy mass produced Chinese shit at the corner store or walmart, its the same mass produced Chinese shit.

FuzzyDunlop21's picture

Like K-Mart but they only sell Walls

edifice's picture

And what does K-Mart sell?

ENTP's picture

Nobody knows, Kmart hasn't made a sale in the last 2 years.

ENTP's picture

Nobody knows, Kmart hasn't made a sale in the last 2 years.

813kml's picture

According to latest sales figures, nothing.

Stoploss's picture

Everything in the store upon liquidation..

tmosley's picture

Ghost costumes and dangerously flammable giant lower case ts.

NidStyles's picture

Walmart has more to lose if caught cheating...

socalbeach's picture

Agreed. Take your pick.


WMT > 0 > NYT


0 > WMT >> NYT (>> means much greater than)

Da Yooper's picture

My barber lets me take the NYT home to use in my out house

That liberal BS makes for good ass wipe

It makes taking a dump satisfying

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater's picture

Newsprint will clog your drains..  So if you're going to do that, then do it at Starbucks, and do a 'Mexican flush'.