[Steve_American]

Beau of the 5th Column explains the beef market. How it's 'concentrated' leading to monopoly pricing power screwing both for the farmer/rancher and consumer.
13 min long

.

[Puffer Fish]

What he's saying in that video is that concentration of ownership of the slaughterhouses has led to them taking away most of the profits of the small farmers raising cows.

But take a guess what has been fueling the corporate takeover of the slaughterhouses. It's mass immigration and the cheap wages that follow. That is what has allowed the takeover.

I posted a thread about a similar phenomena happening here: "Immigration decimates smaller family owned farms in New Zealand" (posted Apr 29, 2020 in Australia section)
viewtopic.php?f=86&t=178412

[Steve_American]

What he's saying in that video is that concentration of ownership of the slaughterhouses has led to them taking away most of the profits of the small farmers raising cows.

But take a guess what has been fueling the corporate takeover of the slaughterhouses. It's mass immigration and the cheap wages that follow. That is what has allowed the takeover.

I posted a thread about a similar phenomena happening here: "Immigration decimates smaller family owned farms in New Zealand" (posted Apr 29, 2020 in Australia section)
viewtopic.php?f=86&t=178412

I'm sorry, but I don't see any connection between small farmers lossing their land and immigration.

Can you flesh it out a little better?

IMHO, that is inccorrect.
The problem is a lack of Gov. regulation. Gov. regulation could not let illegals work in the US.
And lax Anti-trust enforcement that allows the big corps to buy out their competition.
.

[Puffer Fish]

I'm sorry, but I don't see any connection between small farmers lossing their land and immigration.

Can you flesh it out a little better?

without desperate immigrants, oftentimes illegals, from Latin America willing to work for bare bone wages, the huge corporations would never be able to find American employees willing to put up with the horrendous working conditions in corporate slaughterhouses

immigration and the recession in America is also what led to the rise of the humungous corporate retailer Walmart, which then put many smaller retail stores (including many small family owned stores) out of business.

When workers have more leverage in the economy, those workers often prefer to work on their own terms, or in smaller businesses that will treat them well, like a family. But when those workers lose all their leverage in the economy, they become a commodity, and then it's all about relentless "efficiency". The big corporations then take control. It all becomes about extracting maximum "productivity" from the employees for the least cost possible, and the workers all become disposable because if they don't like it, there's plenty more to take their place.

The thing is, the big corporate model really isn't the most efficient, but then becomes the most cost efficient model when the cost of labor drops and becomes negligible--basically when the cost of labor becomes a non-factor and there is less need to efficiently allocate it.

[Puffer Fish]

I'm sorry, but I don't see any connection between small farmers lossing their land and immigration.

Can you flesh it out a little better?

If you looked at the link in the second post, it contains a story that would explain this better.

It's a story from New Zealand about families losing their dairy farms because of competition from corporate dairy farms who use cheap immigrant labor.

If you watched your video in the first post, it explains why the farmer who raises cows is going to lose his farm. He is losing his farm because big corporations have taken over the packing industry and used their market power to push the price down that is paid to those who raise the cows.

In this industry, the cow is first raised by farmers or ranchers, then sold to be slaughtered and packed, and finally sold to the consumer. The big corporations have completely taken over the slaughtering and packing part of that.

[Steve_American]

If you looked at the link in the second post, it contains a story that would explain this better.

It's a story from New Zealand about families losing their dairy farms because of competition from corporate dairy farms who use cheap immigrant labor.

If you watched your video in the first post, it explains why the farmer who raises cows is going to lose his farm. He is losing his farm because big corporations have taken over the packing industry and used their market power to push the price down that is paid to those who raise the cows.

In this industry, the cow is first raised by farmers or ranchers, then sold to be slaughtered and packed, and finally sold to the consumer. The big corporations have completely taken over the slaughtering and packing part of that.

Sorry, I still don't see that immigrants in the US are the problem.

As for the rest, yes, that is what the video says, The 4 meat packing corps have monopoly pricing power in what they pay suppliers of cattle and also, what they charge consumers.
.

[Puffer Fish]

Sorry, I still don't see that immigrants in the US are the problem.

You complain about workers not having the upper hand, but then you want to add more and more workers.

Do you understand the basics of supply and demand? What do you think that will do?

You realise that packing used to be considered a decent working class job? Now it's pretty much only poor immigrants who do it, mostly the more desperate immigrants and who are not legally supposed to be in the country.

You don't "see" it because you don't WANT to see it.

[Puffer Fish]

Think about the Walmart analogy again. All those smaller businesses that Walmart put out of business. Why did those smaller businesses exist before? Think about it.

Those smaller businesses existed for many decades and that was just the norm, especially in many smaller towns.

Supply and demand doesn't only affect price. It also affects working conditions and workers being able to direct their own affairs.

In a marketplace when the workers (this includes those who run a small business, working themselves) lose their leverage, a big corporation takes over.

[Steve_American]

You complain about workers not having the upper hand, but then you want to add more and more workers.

Do you understand the basics of supply and demand? What do you think that will do?

You realise that packing used to be considered a decent working class job? Now it's pretty much only poor immigrants who do it, mostly the more desperate immigrants and who are not legally supposed to be in the country.

You don't "see" it because you don't WANT to see it.

A few things.
1] Actually, I'd rather that all those desperate people were not wanting to come to the US.

2] Corporations get monopoly pricing powerby buying their competition. It is a sort of natural part of capitalism. Consumers have no say in the matter. Supply and demand don't set the price level. The "cartel corps" do.
. . . In the same way Unions with laws that let them have power are able to set the price of labor and corps have no choice but to pay it.

3] So, the current situation you are talking about is not so much a result of immigrants, but rather a result in a big weakening in the laws that gave Unions power in the 60s.
.

[Steve_American]

Think about the Walmart analogy again. All those smaller businesses that Walmart put out of business. Why did those smaller businesses exist before? Think about it.

Those smaller businesses existed for many decades and that was just the norm, especially in many smaller towns.

Supply and demand doesn't only affect price. It also affects working conditions and workers being able to direct their own affairs.

In a marketplace when the workers (this includes those who run a small business, working themselves) lose their leverage, a big corporation takes over.

That is exactly my point above.

The anti-trust laws are not being enforced or have been weakened by the USSC decisions.
These decisions aare largely based on a cse from the 1880s soon after the 14th Amendenemt was ratified, that wass decised as afferming that the Amen,emt only applied to "persons" who are humans, and not to "persons" which are corps.
However, very soon after the ruling, some law clerk added a cover sheet summary that said the opposite, and that cover sheet has been taken as the decision ever since.
. . . Does any one think that this should not be corrected ASAP? The recent Dobbs ruling shows that "terrible" rulings can be reversed. This seems like a terrible ruling to me. Maybe because when I was a kid, corps were not allowed by law to get envovled in policics.

See my thread on this case.
.

[Puffer Fish]

2] Corporations get monopoly pricing powerby buying their competition.

But you don't want to think about, and don't have an answer for, why these corporations did not buy out their competition in the long time period before then.

These problems are not just "inevitable". They were caused by factors that changed the marketplace.

[Puffer Fish]

3] So, the current situation you are talking about is not so much a result of immigrants, but rather a result in a big weakening in the laws that gave Unions power in the 60s.

The anti-trust laws are not being enforced or have been weakened by the USSC decisions.

I think the rise of big corporations and the destruction of unions has very little to nothing to do with any change in law; it does not have to do with anti-trust laws or union laws.

Rather it has to do with a changing marketplace, where the balance of supply and demand of labor shifted far into employer's favor. Essentially an excess of lots of desperate workers, which low wage paying corporations could feed off of.

[Steve_American]

But you don't want to think about, and don't have an answer for, why these corporations did not buy out their competition in the long time period before then.

These problems are not just "inevitable". They were caused by factors that changed the marketplace.

Your ignorance seems to be showing.

There is zero doubt in my mind that before 1900 corps did buy out their copetition. That is how Standard Oil and US Steel got so big.

Then came the Progressive period with the new anti-trust laws. It meant that until about 1980 it was illegal to buy you competition. At least after you got big enough to be able to control over 15% of the market.

Then in 1981 Reagan began the next period with his resturcturing of the Justice Dept. Anti-trusr Div. and the Federal Trade Comm. Which did change the way the laws were enforced. There were also some USSC decisions that changed Labor law.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
This report examines federal antitrust enforcement in terms of activity, resources, and merger fees. Although descriptive statistics do not establish causation, they offer a window into core antitrust enforcement.

Criminal antitrust filings have fallen to historic lows in the United States.
The 16 criminal cases filed in 2018 were the fewest filed since 1990. The 5 corporations charged criminally in 2018 and the 8 charged criminally in 2017 are the fewest since 1990. Over the same time period, only in 1996 were fewer individuals charged than in either 2017 or 2018.

U.S. merger enforcement actions have not kept pace with increased merger filings
Historically, as U.S. merger filings increase, merger enforcement actions increase, but that has changed. Merger filings increased nearly 80 percent between 2010 and 2018, but the number of enforcement actions have been constant, fluctuating at around 40 actions per year.

Civil nonmerger actions have fallen in the United States
Last year was an historically low year for civil nonmerger enforcement, and 2019 also appears to be low. On average, the two federal antitrust agencies brought 10.8 nonmerger cases a year between 1999 and 2008 and 7.5 cases a year between 2009 and 2018.

U.S. antitrust enforcement resources have fallen recently
In real terms (after accounting for inflation), appropriations are 18 percent lower in 2018 than in 2010. The two federal antitrust enforcement agencies had slightly fewer resources in 2018 ($471 million) as they did nearly 20 years earlier, in 2001 ($491 million).

U.S. GDP growth has outpaced growth in antitrust appropriations
Compared to 2008, the U.S. the economy, measured by Growth Domestic Product, has grown twice as fast (39 percent) as antitrust appropriations (20 percent).

https://equitablegrowth.org/research-pa ... N0EALw_wcB

.

[Steve_American]

I think the rise of big corporations and the destruction of unions has very little to nothing to do with any change in law; it does not have to do with anti-trust laws or union laws.

Rather it has to do with a changing marketplace, where the balance of supply and demand of labor shifted far into employer's favor. Essentially an excess of lots of desperate workers, which low wage paying corporations could feed off of.

Yes, there were changes in the marketplace. However, they mostly came from the corps getting the Gov. to change things like trade policy toward "Free Trade". Also, labor law, and anti-trust law, etc.

.