A twofer! The first part of this meme is false, he didn’t say Walmart would close stores. The 2nd part is misleading & brings up a red herring about wage theft. Nearly all of the wage theft lawsuits are decades old and have little bearing on Walmart’s current balance sheet.
▪️The first part of the meme’s claim comes from a Dec 6 interview with CNBC. McMIllion said retail theft was ‘higher than what it has historically been” and “If that’s not corrected over time, prices will be higher, and/or stores will close.”
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/12/06/walmart-ceo-on-rise-in-retail-theft-prices-could-go-higher-and-stores-will-close.html
▪️This spawned headlines and memes that Walmart was considering closing stores, but in context McMillon was clearly speaking generally. Walmart’s spokesman later confirmed this & said McMillion “was speaking about retail in general and not specifically about Walmart.”
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33399EU
▪️The $1.5B in wage theft claim comes from the Violation Tracker from Good Jobs First, a left wing advocacy group. It compiles lawsuits against companies. There are 44 lawsuits for Walmart listed under “wage and hour violations,” you can check it out here:
https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/?parent=walmart&order=primary_offense&sort=desc&page=3
▪️The vast majority of the $1.5B comes from 3 lawsuits:
🔹$640M from 2008, settling 63 lawsuits over wage-and-hour violations, most of which happened years prior.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna28372433
🔹$242M from a 2016 settlement over meal and rest break violations. However, this claim dated back to a 2006 judgment of $78M, which was appealed over a decade and included post-judgement interest.
https://wjactv.com/news/local/thousands-get-early-christmas-present-from-walmart-class-action-lawsuit
🔹$152M in a 2009 class action lawsuit over violating California’s meal and rest break laws. These violations dated back to a 2001 lawsuit.
https://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/09/in-walmart-class-action-huge-judgment-followed-by-stillquitebig-settlement.html
🔹The two other largest settlements, violating California and Nevada labor laws, totaled $86M and $85M. They were from 2009 and 2010, and also dated back to years prior. The vast majority of the smaller settlements were also before 2010.
▪️Clearly, Walmart had problems running afoul of labor laws in the early to mid 2000s. But in recent years, there’s been very few big lawsuits, and settlements aren’t even a rounding error in comparison to their $572B in revenue.
▪️But retail theft is a significant current problem, affecting not just Walmart. Retailers lost nearly $100B to organized crime in 2021. Dismissing this by pointing to an irrelevant stat on wage theft is dishonest. (Ironically this source repeats the false claim about Walmart closing stores)
https://thehill.com/homenews/3767004-walmart-ceo-stores-could-close-with-uptick-in-shoplifting/
▪️It’s been an amazing week for the tariff defenders. They started off by backing the “reciprocal tariffs” which turned out not to be reciprocal at all but based on a nonsensical trade deficit formula, causing substantial tariffs to be put on many countries who had zero or extremely small tariffs on the US.
▪️Then, when the markets tanked we were told not to be “panicans.” The stock market wasn’t actually the economy, this time it’s Main St. over Wall St. The same people who wanted Covid lockdowns hate tariffs so screw them. It was time to finally stop the world from ripping us off, and tariffs were essential to bring back industry to the gutted US economy (even though US workers currently have the highest real wages in history).
▪️Then, Trump decided he didn’t like the markets tanking, backtracked and simply suspended most of the tariffs. Except for China, which he dramatically increased. This was the plan all along! It was 4D chess to play hardball with China.
...
This kind of (non)thinking is so ridiculous. Equating Covidians with anti-tariff ignores a whole subset (Thomas Sowell, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, Alex Berenson, etc.) who were against both. It also ignores that the Trump Administration was pro-lockdown!
This page was adamantly against lockdowns and mandates during Covid. What was so frustrating back then was that it was obvious the mandates and lockdowns would not stop the spread. So it was not a dilemma of shutting down the economy vs. stopping the spread, it was a decision between no lockdowns and everyone gets Covid, or shutting down the economy and everyone still gets Covid.
With tariffs, the trade off is equally dumb. They won’t hurt Wall Street but help Main Street, they’ll make things more expensive for the avg worker and potentially cost them their jobs. It’s lose lose. Like with Covid it’s maddening that people can’t just decide not to torpedo the economy, they have this idiotic inertia they just can’t stop. We’ll ...
The reactions by some on the right to the tariffs are embarrassing in their mindlessness. Pure sophistry and non sequiturs that avoid actually putting forth a coherent economic argument. Probably because you can’t defend what actually happened. Trump unleashed “retaliatory tariffs” not even based on tariff rates but based on some formula regarding trade deficits which is nonsensical. Thus, the highest tariffs are against countries like Cambodia, Bangladesh and Lesotho, who apparently are the ones “ripping us off.”
There is no coherent strategy or economic view here. One day it’s “tariffs are necessary to rebuild the US economy” then they’re just 4d chess negotiating tactics, then when the markets plummet over the chaos that’s actually fine because (a la Bernie Sanders) the stock market isn’t the economy and who cares about people’s stock portfolios?! The only lodestar is trust in Trump no matter what. It will be interesting to see how long these rationalizations ...
