Walmart Coming to Ellensburg

By Clem
(2 votes) (report abuse)
Another meeting is coming up this Thursday Dec 18 at 7:00 pm in the Ellensburg Council chambers. This is a continuation of the last meeting that had a large turnout.

Looking at things from the Cle Elum perspective it would be nice to have another competititor for groceries mainly but also for other goods. I remember last summer looking for an air conditioner and not one business in Ellensburg had one in stock in late June.

For groceries the local Safeway charges about 7% more than the Ellensburg Safeway. Last year when I saw a jar of Mayonanise priced at $4.00 I decided to comparison shop and made a list of 25 items and priced them at both Eburg and Cle Elum. Cle Elum was of course 7% higher in price. Gasoline has been persistently about 24 cents a gallon higher. Anthing that would drive prices lower here I think would help residents in the upper county.
Walmart byCleElum1 December 15, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I'm with you. From where I sit it would be nice to have Walmart here for the affordability factor. Especially, groceries, but beyond that, even the everyday household items are sooo much cheaper at Walmart. The larger selection of everything is something to look forward to. Its too bad that the older folks on fixed incomes in upper county have the limitations sometimes of not being able to get out of town to shop.
Walmart Groceries byClem December 16, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I would think the savings could be as high as 25% for food at the Walmart compared to the Cle Elum Safeway. If you have ever been to Arizona or Southern California they have a couple of smaller supermarket chains that cater to hispanics and people that are looking for a bargain. They dont do much advertising and they keep a lot of stuff cheap all the time. The Cle Elum Safeway is kind of interesting because it was constructed of the cheapest materials possible. Its the exact opposite of the Ellensburg Safeway which is kind of a flagship store.
Not sure it's going to happen bydiggergirl December 18, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I'm not sure if it's just Ellensburg or all of Kittitas County but there has been steps to put a required "high traffic" clause in place for any national business planning on setting up shop here. Cost of this ticket, $750,000. If Walmart is willing to shell out the money, everyone could benefit.

Personally I wouldn't want one here. When Walmart moves in, you'll find the majority of your Mom & Pop establishments are going to disappear. Some of my favorite stores in Renton closed within the same year that Wal-mart went up. I just can't fathom people whose families have lived in Ellensburg for generations being forced to leave because the business they've had for decades can't compete with Wal-mart.
RE: Not sure it's going to happen by2much2say January 01, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
I think moving a Walmart into Ellensburg would be a terrible idea!! With a walmart comes trouble. First of all yes the Kittitas county does lack a little, maybe a lot in shopping opportunities, but is this not why we live in a small community? Second, Walmart is not going to change how or where I shop, I would not shop there anyway. If I need something that cannot get locally then I either go to yakima, Seattle or just order it off the internet. I am thankful that I have chosen to live and raise my family in a small communtiy. If we get a Walmart what will be next? I love my small town, and I know that a Walmart would corrupt this.
Walmart Will Compete with Fred Meyer byClem December 18, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Thats where the main competition will be. So many businesses have already closed over the years because shopping habits have changed in different ways. In the upper county where we have fewer stores from the 1940-to 1990 something much of the shopping was done by catalogue. At Christmas the families filled out an order form and had the goods delivered to either the Sears or Wards store. Those two stores are now gone. Sears was even declining before the internet and Amazon.

I did almost all of my Christmas shopping at FM and on Ebay. My wife did hers at Amazon. Walmart will not change my shopping habits that much. FM will be forced to lower grocery prices to compete with WM. The real casualty I think will be Albertson's and Bi-Mart. Albertson's in particular might be forced to close with a drop in business.
Competition bypirateyoho December 18, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Wether we likeit or not competition is what this country was founded on...do it better, faster, cheaper. I may not like WM, but they should be afforded the same oppurtunity as other develpomentsin the community.
RE: Competition byCleElum1 December 18, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse)
I like your thinking! If we can have 16,000 acres(Suncadia Resort) for the ultra-rich, why not a WM for the rest of us?
RE: Competition byZHawkeye December 28, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse)
It's not that mom and pop business owners can't compete. ANYone CAN compete with Walmart. However, too many business owners are so stuck on business-as-usual that they refuse to adjust to the business climate. The fact is that Walmart's service SUCKS. And many of their products are inferior to those that are sold by specialty shops on main street. For example, the bike shop isn't going anywhere because Walmart's bikes are garbage, and the employees know very little about the merchandise. But the mom and pops that get away with glaring at customers won't survive because suddenly there's competition. Going back to the main thought: ANYone is ABLE to compete with Walmart, but many won't. It's not dog eat dog. It's man chooses dog.
Home Depot-Competition byClem December 29, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Home Depot could provide some competition to the local builder supply stores. The problems with the local builder supply stores is that some only cater to the "locals boys" meaning local builders, painters, etc. who have set up accounts in the store. I pay one price while the contractors pay another price. Most recently I paid $8.25 for a single piece of sheet rock that I know the local guys were getting much cheaper on their accounts. Home Depot was selling sheet rock for $5 a sheet for comparision. A couple of the local places are OK and in fact on a recent deck project lumber was cheaper at Harpers in Roslyn than Home Depot. Harpers is pretty decent in the upper county. I just bought my new snow shovel there. Lots of great stuff in the store.
RE: Home Depot-Competition byZHawkeye December 29, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse)
It often gets overlooked that the $3.50 you saved on that one piece of sheetrock (by going to Home Depot) is exactly that much more money you have available to spend at any business on main street. In this way, big box retail stores are good for local businesses.
Harpers is Great byAureliux January 01, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
How long with they last, once a Walmart is going in this county? I try to stop in there every time I'm up in Roz.

A.
Wal-Mart bywineguy January 01, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Wal-Mart does have low prices, that really isn't debatable. What the vast majority of people fail to consider is HOW Wal-Mart can be so profitable, grow so fast, and have "low prices, everyday."

10-15 years ago, I remember seeing Wal-Mart commercials where Sam Walton himself would tout Wal-Mart's support of American made products. It was really a big deal to him. Fast forward to today, you see no such campaigns. 60%+ percent of the "hard goods" (non-grocery items) in Wal-Mart are made in China. All of those American made products have been outsourced to China. The American textile industry is in ruins. Virtually every toy is made overseas. Wal-Mart has been absolutely masterful at manipulating manufacturers in order to get low, low prices. Wal-Mart requires the suppliers to have completely transparent accounting; they require manufacturers to provide all of the relevant data as to costs and even company profits. If suppliers won't provide that data they are not allowed to sell products to Wal-Mart. Manufacturers, afraid of losing the largest retailer as a customer, have to give in. Wal-Mart tells them the price they will pay for the goods. If that price is too low for the manufacturer to make any money, they are forced to relocate production to places like China or Indonesia.

The average Wal-Mart associate is not a full-time employee. Wal-Mart pays wages that are considerably lower than other retailers (particularly grocery retailers). Full-time, journeyman wages at local grocery stores receive just under $15/hour. Wal-Mart employees average $9-$11/hour.

You really have to ask yourself, is it really worth it to save a few bucks when supporting these kinds of behavior with your money only reinforces these kinds of activities. It absolutely makes me laugh to drive through the Wal-Mart parking lot in Yakima and see cars with patriotic American bumper stickers sitting outside the store. Their owners inside contributing, in a small way on an individual basis, to the utter collapese of the American manufacturing industry. Everyone seems to be willing to even examine exactly how Wal-Mart can do what they do without it costing someone.
RE: Wal-Mart byZHawkeye January 02, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
When it comes to business, people vote on their preferences everyday with their dollars. If Walmart wants to compete for your business (and I mean you personally), they'll make the necessary changes to do so. Right now, though, enough people have voted with their dollars to make Walmart successful. That's the economical perspective.

Walmart pays their employees a competitive wage. There's a reason that big companies pay the highest wages and offer the most attractive working conditions. It's commonly the small main street businesses, perhaps suffering from excessive wage competition, that offer the lowest wages. Employers pay enough to hold workers or to attract them from each other. Insisting that Walmart pay their employees more would be a greater harm to the local economy, because few people would be willing to work at mom and pop shops for less pay.

You make the point that Walmart hurts manufacturing industries in America. I agree that it's a tragedy when an individual loses their job. That's the seen effect of production going overseas. Economically speaking, however, when the cost of one good goes down, that's more resources available to go elsewhere. In other words, when that one job is lost, more than one job is ultimately created, though it's not immediately seen.

Money saved on textiles can now be spent on a new suit, creating the job of suitmaker. That suitmaker will spend that money on apples, creating more orchard jobs. Those apple farmers will spend their money on books to read, creating more writers' jobs.

Hear me out on this one. Everything is produced at the expense of forgoing something else. When John Smith works at the textile factory, he's forgoing working at the widget factory. If the demand of widgets go up, people are going to shift their resources from textiles to widgets. If the textile industry can't compete, it's only because the community values widgets more than textiles. It would be wrong to force everyone in the neighborhood to give their money to the textile factory at the expense of the widget factory. By helping John Smith (using coercive force to raise the price of textiles), you steal widgets from everyone in the neighborhood. John Smith can get another job, maybe even at the widget factory, but the community can't afford to pay John Smith for something they don't need.

When Walmart lowers the price of a good, that's more money you personally can spend at a local restaurant. That restaurant, in turn, spends their money at other businesses and so on, creating more business (jobs) for everyone in the community. Every time you use force to help John Smith keep his job, his wage comes at the cost to everyone in the community. It's only when the community needs the fruit of John Smith's labor that they should pay for it.

The economic cost you fear, isn't a cost at all. The only cost is exactly the amount that you would waste buying a product or service that you didn't need.
bythorpi January 01, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
2much2say, were did you live before you lived in Ellensburg?
See me in a Walmart? byAureliux January 01, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Better look again, it wasn't me.

A.
bywineguy January 02, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
"Walmart pays their employees a competitive wage." - zhawkeye

Your post is wrong on so many levels but this is the first, and most obvious. Average Wal-Mart Associates earn $10-$11 per hour but do not work 40 hrs per week. The average employee at Safeway, Albertsons, Fred Meyer (grocery dept), and Super One earn just under $15/hour if they are journeymen, or at the non-union equivalent experience level. That is roughly 33% lower wages than their contemporaries here in Ellensburg. You have to compare the wages at any particular company to those paid by their direct competitors. Otherwise the comparison is useless. I have to run, but will comment on some other things later.
byZHawkeye January 02, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse)
By definition, it's not wrong to call Walmart's wage "competitive". It's also important to point out that to call Walmart's wage low, you compared the average* Walmart employees with the highest paid* Safeway employees. I'll elaborate on both points...

To say that a wage is competitive is to say that it "competes." Labor for money is a trade-off, and it's both parties (employer and employee) who negotiate that trade. If the employee believes their labor is worth more than the employer is willing to give, no deal. Ultimately, a worker wants infinite money, and an employer wants to part with none. They have to settle somewhere in the middle. When a worker agrees to accept a price for his or her labor, the wage is set, and he or she performs the job. A worker won't take a job, unless it's worth the labor. Many people every day decide that their labor is worth the money that Walmart will give them. The principle applies to a group of workers as well as the individual -- people choose to accept X pay for their labor.

Walmart's wages compete with other businesses. If a Walmart worker decides the conditions and wage at Safeway are better, they'll make the effort to move. Safeway's wages will also compete Walmart's. Small businesses will compete in wages as well. This is how Walmart's wages will be "competitive."

I'll have to take your word on the numbers you cite talking about wage difference. It seems obviously likely, though, that the average wage at one establishment will be less than a journeyman at a competing establishment, regardless of industry. I'd be interested in knowing the average wage of a regular Safeway employee, which I would bet outweigh (heavily) the journeymen. Let's not compare apples to oranges.

Also, I'd like to get past the "I'm right you're wrong" mentality, because that's going to get neither of us anywhere.
CleElum Safeway byCleElum1 January 02, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse)
Hey Wineguy,

My sister-in-law has worked Safeway's in CleElum for 17 yrs, full-time, and is only making $11.00 hr. In the winter most employee's are dropped down to 20 some hours a week. So much for a living wage here in CE???
bywineguy January 02, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
"It's also important to point out that to call Walmart's wage low, you compared the average* Walmart employees with the highest paid* Safeway employees." - zhawkeye

No I didn't. I compared the average Wal-Mart wage with journeyman (or non-union equivalent in the case of Super One and Fred Meyer) wages. Journeyman status in the grocery industry is typically achieved in less than 2 1/2 years of full-time employment. Wal-Mart employees never have that benefit as the company has been successful in bullying employees to stay out of the UFCW. It should be noted that I am not a huge advocate of unions in general. I have however worked in grocery stores for many years in the past.

"I'd be interested in knowing the average wage of a regular Safeway employee, which I would bet outweigh (heavily) the journeymen." - zhawkeye

In a union shop like Safeway there is no difference in pay. You start out at the apprentice wage then as you put in hours your pay goes up. It's pretty simple. If you put in the time and training, you get the wage. You must be in the union to work there.
Cle Elum Safeway bywineguy January 02, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
"My sister-in-law has worked Safeway's in CleElum for 17 yrs, full-time, and is only making $11.00 hr. In the winter most employee's are dropped down to 20 some hours a week. So much for a living wage here in CE???" - Cle Elum1

I am sorry to hear that. I honestly don't know what figure they are using to calculate prevailing wage in Cle Elum. Heck, I am not 100% certain that it is a union shop. It does also depend on which department she works in. In some stores, the cashiers are in a completely different union from the meatcutters or the general grocery guys.
RE: Cle Elum Safeway byCleElum1 January 02, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse)
She's worked every dept. except the meat dept. and is a union member but not happy about paying her dues for nothing.

Safeway top dollar wages is why there was a line up of Safeway employee's who tried they're dead-level best to get on with Mountain Star mini mart across the road from Safeway's when they opened.
Economics seminar bywineguy January 02, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
"In other words, when that one job is lost, more than one job is ultimately created, though it's not immediately seen." - zhawkeye

So, the millions of manufacturing jobs that have been lost in here in the US over the last 10 years have all been replaced with what? McDonald's jobs? Wal-Mart jobs? Once a plant closes down there aren't any options. That guy who worked at the plant for 15 years is now forced to work at Wal-Mart just to collect a paycheck. Trading a revenue producing job at $18/hr for a service industry job at $11/hr is a game that doesn't have a good ending.

"The economic cost you fear, isn't a cost at all." - zhawkeye

Google around and you'll find out that the Wal-Mart corporation is China's sixth largest trading partner in the world. That means that there are only five other COUNTRIES on the planet that do more business with China than the US. Try to explain to me how those goods, produced offshore with virtual slave labor isn't an economic cost to the US citizens.
RE: Economics seminar byCleElum1 January 02, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse)
I'll buy "made in the U.S.A." just as soon as we make everything I need at price that competes with China's.
RE: Economics seminar byZHawkeye January 02, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
If Manufacturer Mike decides to spend less energy in exchange for less money, that's a decision he makes. For the same amount of his energy he gave to the manufacturing company, he could potentially give 11 dollars worth of his energy to Walmart and spend the remaining energy doing something else. Or he could apply his skills somewhere else -- whatever he decides is best. There are plenty of businesses in America willing to pay enough money to attract hard workers like ex-Manufacturer Mike.

Manufacturer Mike has a lot to thank Walmart for, including extending the value of his dollar. Walmart has increased the access to and abundance of many of the most basic shopping goods, such as groceries, clothes, drugs, beauty products, toys, sporting goods, home appliances, and much more. Because of Walmart's efficiency and lower prices, more of these goods exist for everyone. As Walmart's prices lower, more people are able to buy these goods. Manufacturer Mike's dollar buys a lot more goods than before Walmart spurred the competition within Mike's industry.

Would you steal 100 families' washing machines in order to give Mike his job back? Consumers have voted with their dollars -- they don't want to pay Mike for nothing.

Every time some new innovation in technology or organization enables people to produce more with less, the landscape of the market changes. Some jobs disappear, while some jobs come into existence for the first time. When the automobile was invented, it caused a radical increase in productivity for businesses throughout the economic system by allowing almost everything to be transported much more easily. But it didn't arrive without causing problems for some people in the short-term. Countless people whose businesses depended on the widespread use of horses and buggies were left without a job, but this didn't represent any kind of net loss to the economic system.

When some jobs are shifted to China, new ones are created in America, over the long-term. Because of the competition and free trade, Americans can afford more, better goods, and so can the Chinese. In the long-term, both countries are better off than before. That's the reason trade exists in the first place, you know that.

That's how there's no economic cost to US citizens.
RE: Economics seminar bybeaver January 03, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
I agree wineguy, trading usually high paying manufacturing jobs for service jobs may well turn into a disaster. How many people making 9-10 dollars an hour can afford to buy anything but the basic necessities of life? They won't buy a new car, a home, go out to dinner and a movie, or anything else but the very bare necessities they must have to survive.

And CleElum1, if you are only willing to pay Chinese prices are you willing to accept a Chinese standard of living?
RE: Economics seminar byCleElum1 January 04, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse)
Beaver,

What you don't get is that because I'm only willing to pay Chinese prices that I even have any kind of decent standard of living. If I had to pay what it costs to buy what I could even find American Made I wouldn't own much more than the clothes on my back.

It's also worth noting that it's a good thing I don't need much in life to make me happy since as someone who lives below the poverty line I have very little disposable income.

I have a question for you, what exactly is a Chinese standard of living?
RE: Economics seminar byZHawkeye January 04, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse)
If America really wanted to help keep its manufacturing jobs, we'd make it less costly for these businesses to operate here, rather than artificially making foreign goods more costly. By keeping goods more costly, all that does is hurt the consumer.

So help me answer the question: how do we make American manufacturing less costly to perform?

A few suggestions I have: less taxes, lower the cost of raw materials, less tariffs, less government interference on wages (let the workers and business negotiate on their own)...
RE: Economics seminar byZHawkeye January 04, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse)
Also, in reply to beaver, those people who work for a lower wage are doing so presumably because they are unwilling or unable to work for more. People earn what they do based on how they apply their own knowledge, skills and abilities. If you and people you know decide that low-earning workers need help to receive more than they earn, I really encourage you to personally help them afford it. I might even help the cause. I just don't think government intervention is the answer.

America benefits in buying Chinese goods for less, because now everyone can afford more. China benefits with the extra money we give them for their goods, and over the long-term this will greatly improve their situation.
RE: Economics seminar bybeaver January 04, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse)
Chinese standard of living? For starters there is government censorship, even for foreign journalists during the olympics.

Second, working conditions in factories.
They enter the factory system and often step into a nightmare of twelve-hour to eighteen-hour work days with no day of rest, earning meager wages that may be withheld or unpaid altogether. The factories are sweltering, dusty, and damp. Workers are fully exposed to chemical toxins and hazardous machines, and suffer sickness, disfiguration, and death at the highest rates in world history. They live in cramped cement-block dormitories, up to twenty to a room, without privacy. They face militaristic regimentation, surveillance, and physical abuse by supervisors during their long day of work and by private police forces during their short night of recuperation in the dormitories http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=335

Third, Food. What they don’t tell you at the stalls though is that the meat’s been sitting unrefrigerated for a day or two; the oil isn’t just full of trans fats, but it’s recycled (yup, recycled); and most of the cheap beer is fake and contains more formaldehyde than my high school science class http://www.thehumanaught.com/blog/2008/06/04/quality-of-life

Fourth, housing. Unfinished and dirty stairways with no lighting, windows that let mosquitoes in and heat out, the absence of hot water outside of the shower, beds with box springs disguised as mattresses and foul odors escaping from all open drains for the country’s complete denial that U-bends were ever created http://www.thehumanaught.com/blog/2008/06/04/quality-of-life

Fifth, pollution. Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pa
RE: Economics seminar byCleElum1 January 04, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse)
Thanks beaver for your take on life in China.
Pure fantasy bywineguy January 02, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
"When some jobs are shifted to China, new ones are created in America, over the long-term. Because of the competition and free trade, Americans can afford more, better goods, and so can the Chinese. In the long-term, both countries are better off than before. That's the reason trade exists in the first place, you know that.

That's how there's no economic cost to US citizens." - zhawkeye

Unfortunately most Americans don't have the luxury of waiting for the long-term benefits of your theoretical scenario. No amount of double-speak will ever convince me that an American who loses a job due to a factory closing and moving overseas, is going to be better off making less money. Free trade itself is not wrong or evil. Companies, who coerce other companies to ship manufacturing processes overseas in order to make a pricepoint, are.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Wal-Mart is the single most morally and ethically bankrupt company in America. I will die a happy man if they never get another penny out of me. I'm out.
RE: Pure fantasy byZHawkeye January 02, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
It's a bummer that you don't think I'm worth convincing. Your words aren't falling on deaf ears (or eyes) -- I'm like you: just a guy with an opinion.

Here's the difference I've gathered in this discussion: you value the short-term effects on a relatively small number of people, and I value the long-term aggregate effects on the whole population. Either way, there's a sacrifice of the other.

We also differ in our view of force. Walmart's force on other businesses only comes with the threat of not doing business at all. Using government to disallow Walmart from buying land and doing business on that land comes with the threat of violence. It's only my opinion that the latter is less moral than the former.

... and I guess that's the end of our discussion.
CommentsRSS Feed
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account