Local News

Walmart distribution center to create 450 jobs in Mebane

Posted December 10, 2013

— Walmart announced Tuesday it plans to open a grocery distribution center in Mebane within the next three years that will provide 450 jobs.

The facility will serve about 120 Walmart stores in North Carolina and surrounding states, according to a news release from Gov. Pat McCrory’s office. The company said it will invest more than $100 million in the project.

Salaries will vary by job function, but the average annual pay for the new jobs will be $35,374 plus benefits. The Alamance County average annual wage is $34,858.

Walmart has qualified for a grant of up to $1.1 million from the state’s One North Carolina Fund, which provides assistance to companies to attract business to the state. The company receives no money upfront and must meet job and investment targets to obtain the funds.

36 Comments

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
View all
  • wayneboyd Dec 11, 6:24 p.m.

    Most of those complaining are upset because the ESC will be referring them to Wal-Marts sign up sight when they go back to re-sign up for benefits. The free money is going to stop flowing for 450 who have grown accustomed to loafing.

  • junkmail5 Dec 11, 1:44 p.m.

    junkmail, I never said wages were the only cause of inflation- mikefan5600

    yes, you did actually.

    You asked how there can even BE inflation if not for WAGES going up.

    Meaning you had NO IDEA there were other possible causes.

    you keep saying it has nothing to do with inflation.- mikeyfan5600

    No, I didn't actually.

    your comments saying wage increases only increase cost by .1%- mikeyfan5600

    I didn't say THAT either.

    I said on average increasing MIN WAGE by 10% causes a 0.1% bump in prices.

    Because that's a documented fact.

    Which is VASTLY different than claiming ANY increase of ANY wage causes a 0.1% price bump- which is something you only imagined I said... (or didn't understand the difference)

    I'd again suggest you review some very basic econ tutorials before trying to revisit the topic... you don't seem to know enough about the basic terms being used to understand what is happening.

  • mikeyfan5600 Dec 11, 12:11 p.m.

    junkmail, I never said wages were the only cause of inflation, but you keep saying it has nothing to do with inflation. By your comments saying wage increases only increase cost by .1% then all items today should cost about the same as they did in 1968. But then you want to quantify that factor by inflation, which you can't. There is a cause and effect on all things, leading to inflation and wages are a major part of that cause. That is something you can't or won't grasp. And yes, UNIONS overpriced themselves. My dad a lifetime member of the IBEW will tell you the unions especially the AFL-CIO overpriced themselves and that is a major factor in the car industry going belly up in 2008, a major reason cars today cost way more than they should as each subcontractor increases his wage, and passes along his cost the end products keeps going up. Now do you understand?

  • junkmail5 Dec 11, 11:44 a.m.

    Junkmail, my grasp of the economy is much better than your's- Mikeyfan5600

    Then why you do keep being wrong about so many basic and fundamental points?

    For example thinking "wages" are the only, or even primary, cause of inflation...

    or thinking that "unions" are why our factory employees cost more than the $1.36 a day the Chinese are paid.

    Or thinking a minimum wage over 30% LOWER than it was 35 years ago is somehow higher...

    and on and on....

    Costs of labor will ALWAYS be MUCH lower in nations with much lower standards of living.

    The reason so much manufacturing has moved to those places in recent decades isn't that US labor "got too expensive"... US labor was ALWAYS much more expensive.

    The reasons labor has moved there is modern technology allowing global supply chains to work efficiently with labor overseas versus domestic, plus free trade agreements removing many tax and tariff barriers to such practices.

    they'd have moved 100 years ago if it had been possible

  • 1983rs Dec 11, 10:54 a.m.

    what will be the mean wage of the workers? if you pay one or to at the top massive salaries(and they most likely are working from the home office)averaging it out with only 450 is a great way of making bad figures look good!!!figures lie-liars figure

  • mack24 Dec 11, 10:36 a.m.

    $35k a year sounds great to me if I'm currently not working or currently earning minimum wage. $25k sounds great to me under same circumstances. If me and my spouse both worked there and earned $20k each, I'd be happy. This is an economic boon, folks. This is GOOD; not BAD. JOBS. EMPLOYMENT.
    You people are exasperating!

  • mack24 Dec 11, 10:29 a.m.

    Do the math, ITB. That's "450" jobs. Anyway, enough of the idiocy.
    Congratulations Mebane, Alamance County and our great state. Thank you, Governor McCrory.

  • junkmail5 Dec 11, 10:17 a.m.

    Junkmail. Explain why there was inflation? How could it possibly NOT because wages went up.-= mikeyfan5600

    ... what?

    You DO understand inflation happens even when wages do NOT increase right?

    No, apparently not...

    In fact, the LACK of wage increases is the CAUSE of the gross income inequality in the US these days.

    Wages prior to about 1980 were outpacing inflation by a decent amount.

    In the last 30-40 years they've BARELY kept up, overall, for most people... and for many have gone BACKWARD. (see my note about min wage people making over 30% LESS than they did in the late 60s).

    Here's just a story on just a FEW of the causes of inflation that are NOT "wage increases"

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/30/what-actually-causes-inflation/

    Seriously, your grasp of econ is TERRIBLE and you really need to address it before you can discuss this much further.

  • junkmail5 Dec 11, 10:12 a.m.

    the overall percentage of the US population over the age of 16 that is working or seeking to work continues to decline under Obama.- Paladin2

    Sure. Of course the decline BEGAN almost 2 years BEFORE Obama- but you left that out.

    For a few reasons.

    1) That number counts the baby boomers, who are retiring at record rates

    2) A lot of people are going back to school in the face of a weak job market for those without skills

    3) Most of the INCREASE in participation rate the last few decades were households becoming 2-income... But now that's declining a bit as some families decide to leave one parent at home with the kids rather than take a low-paying job and pay for child care

    The number of people in the labor force in the US has declined by 90 million since Obama has been in office.
    Paladin2

    That's just an outright lie.

    Dude there's only 310 million in the ENTIRE COUNTRY.

    The rate is down less than -3 percent- since Obama took office.

    65.7 in Jan 09, 63% Nov 13.

  • mikeyfan5600 Dec 11, 9:59 a.m.

    Junkmail. Explain why there was inflation? How could it possibly NOT because wages went up. As wages go up, cost goes up, as cost goes up so do prices to recover those cost. That is basic economics. If we still lived under the same guise as 1968 that you keep repeating, then yes our factories would still be going, new cars would still cost less than 3K, a new home would still be less than 20K, but as you drive up cost with wages, you lose jobs, but you are too naïve to understand that, but anyone with any type of common sense can figure out, you cannot sustain manufacturing cost if you keep raising the cost of labor which, in spite of what you may think, affects all products in the process from raw materials, to individual manufactured component's, to the final end item cost.

More...