How do you packer blamers explain this? Part II

[mrj]

Having read some time ago that Tyson's low end wages are $9.00 to $11.00 per hour and averaging that for ALL employees (which surely is ridiculously below the reality of the average wage for ALL), one comes up with an annual additional income for the 100 new workers of $1.5Million. That seems a pretty fair annual return for the city on their investment.

Say that average income (BTW, I deducted $100.00 per month for the usual deductions and am sure that is also low) is what ALL 600 employees take home......the incomes for those workers would be minimally $90.Million. They may not all live in Ponca City, but most likely are within the trade area of that city.

I heard on a radio station in Tulsa recently, people discussing the drastic reduction in population of that state, especially in the western side. They were desperately seeking new businesses to employ the people they have and to bring more people into the towns and cities.

That low end wage for Tyson or any other company bashed over low wages is surely not where the bulk of their employees stay forever. As skills and competence of a worker increases, companies will have to pay better wages or lose that employee.

MRJ

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Your "shareholder reports" also reported operating margins. Operating margins before interest and taxes is what is reported to GIPSA. Operating margins do not list losses due to expansion.

Once again you are wrong.

SH, READ! The table showing the $12 million loss was NOT an operating margin report. Don't try and confuse the issues with your smoke and mirrors. The $12 million loss INCLUDED interest.

WHY DID I NEED TO TELL YOU THE APPROPRIATE DEDUCTIONS IF YOU SUPPOSEDLY KNEW WHAT THE RETAIL PROFITS WERE????????

I guess I need to explain this to you as well. The difference between what the packers paid for the product and what the packers recieved for the product is the GROSS PROFIT. Since you said you knew what the packer's costs were, I thought it was perfectly reasonable to ask you to provide them to me so we could work a NET PROFIT. Instead, you copped out.

You did the typical blamer thing of taking a retail beef price and attributing it to the entire carcass without factoring in bone, fat, shrink, trim, etc. etc. You exposed your ignorance of the retail beef industry like most packer blamers do then you come up with some cheesy excuse about "gross profit" hoping nobody would notice.

More smoke SH. I calculated it all with YOUR 40% red meat yield on an animal that went purely for hamburger. I reduced the packers margins as much as I could on a product with as little markup as I could find and still came out way ahead of what you said was the packers margin.

This just proves to me without a doubt how lost you really are. The smaller less efficient packer needs a $40 per head margin to remain in business because they can't compete with the larger packing companies that keep their doors open at a $17 per head margin. Where does the additional $23 come from that is the difference between the per head slaughtering cost of the larger more efficient packing company and the smaller less efficient packing company??? THE CONSUMER OR THE PRODUCER???? The packers would be "FORCED TO ATTEMPT"???? How do you "FORCE TO ATTEMPT" consumers to do anything when they have other protein choices????

Engage your brain SH. The $23 differential is less than 5 cents/lb on a typical carcass. That wouldn't even be close to enough to influence consumer demand on a scale grand enough to accomplish what you are suggesting would happen.

I'm simply amazed at this mentality that "CONCENTRATION" is somehow unique to the cattle industry. All around you there is ranchers and businesses getting bigger to compete while you cuss concentration in the packing industry. Typical blamer who can't see the forrest for the trees.

I find it odd how I when I use the grain industry to illustrate how concentration has hurt the small producer, you say "Oh that doesn't count. Its different.", but then you turn around and say something like this. So concentration in the grain industry doesn't count? Why not? Because it helps to prove my point?

Rod

 

[Jason]

Rod, it's obvious you just don't like big companies. I can understand that. But it doesn't make all big companies bad.

Your own numbers prove big packers have survived because of their size. How can a small plant expand on a $3.88 margin? It can't. But a big player can expand slowly. Not much expansion happened at $3.88, it waited until that bad patch was over.

Packers are making money. Good for them. Their money for expansion comes from earnings. Interest on money borrowed to expand is a write off. I still don't see the problem. Ranchers do exactly the same thing.

The option is out there for every single rancher to set up a packer and kill and sell their own beef. But I don't want to...I don't have the time...I'd have to get outside my comfort zone... The option is still there.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod, it's obvious you just don't like big companies. I can understand that. But it doesn't make all big companies bad.

This hasn't anything to do with my like or dislike of large companies. This has to do with a heavily concentrated industry hurting producers, a government/court system who won't actually hold the companies accountable, and people who stick their heads in the sand believing the large company line without actually engaging their brains and working some numbers back to see if they're being lied to.

I do firmly believe that a large company like Tyson should not be allowed into several competing markets. If Tyson were to be split up into its separate chicken, beef and pork industries, I likely wouldn't have much to say about Tyson (unless they tried to purchase more plants. They have enough of the market as it is). And before anyone launches into an economies of scale arguement, having capacity in chicken doesn't allow for economies of scale in beef, so there is no reason for Tyson (or any other packer for that matter) to be involved in both industries except for diversification.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Rod, it's obvious you just don't like big companies. I can understand that. But it doesn't make all big companies bad.

Your own numbers prove big packers have survived because of their size. How can a small plant expand on a $3.88 margin? It can't. But a big player can expand slowly. Not much expansion happened at $3.88, it waited until that bad patch was over.

Packers are making money. Good for them. Their money for expansion comes from earnings. Interest on money borrowed to expand is a write off. I still don't see the problem. Ranchers do exactly the same thing.

The option is out there for every single rancher to set up a packer and kill and sell their own beef. But I don't want to...I don't have the time...I'd have to get outside my comfort zone... The option is still there.

Jason, the option is still out there for you to get off of the electrical grid (if you are on it) and produce your own electricity with generators and such. Do you want to, is it in your comfort zone? The option is still there.

When California deregulated their electricity production, profit seeking companies like Enron and others shafted the buyers of electricity. It is because the people who were calling for deregulation did not understand the economics behind the reasons for the regulations and just thought govt. should get out of everything. There were rolling blackouts and brownouts in California and a lot of businesses had to build their own electrical production systems (generators and such) because of the inconsistent electricity. It ended up costing the state boo coos of dollars and led to the current crises that Schwarzenegger (sp?) has to deal with. The environment suffered because of the pollution that these extra generators put out compared to the electricity that was made at the big plants. Efficiency in the California economy declined and businesses located elsewhere.

We had some regulators/politicians in California that went for the money and power over the common good by either incompetence or plain old sefl interests. These are the kind of mistakes that are happening in the regulatory agencies.

You can argue little points until the cows come home, but when companies make public policy, you rely on the character and ethics of those in power to make good decisions that don't just benefit them. We have a real problem with these business "dictators" being benevolent to anyone but themselves. Just look at what they pay themselves.

 

[the chief]

Having read some time ago that Tyson's low end wages are $9.00 to $11.00 per hour and averaging that for ALL employees (which surely is ridiculously below the reality of the average wage for ALL), one comes up with an annual additional income for the 100 new workers of $1.5Million. That seems a pretty fair annual return for the city on their investment.

Say that average income (BTW, I deducted $100.00 per month for the usual deductions and am sure that is also low) is what ALL 600 employees take home......the incomes for those workers would be minimally $90.Million. They may not all live in Ponca City, but most likely are within the trade area of that city.

I heard on a radio station in Tulsa recently, people discussing the drastic reduction in population of that state, especially in the western side. They were desperately seeking new businesses to employ the people they have and to bring more people into the towns and cities.

That low end wage for Tyson or any other company bashed over low wages is surely not where the bulk of their employees stay forever. As skills and competence of a worker increases, companies will have to pay better wages or lose that employee.

MRJ

OPEN YOUR EYES MRJ AND READ THIS

Flood believes Tyson should pay to ease the expected budget crunch on
groups that created new services to meet the needs of Tyson employees,
many of which are new immigrants. The groups must continue providing
the services even after the company has left, Flood says.

"The City of Norfolk and Madison County have made significant changes
in the way they do business following your company's decision to locate
in Norfolk," Flood says in the letter.

"Our schools have developed programs for English language learners, our
health care system has implemented programming to serve Latino, Somali
and Sudanese communities and our law enforcement has implemented
changes to provide high quality public safety services."

About $900,000 of Flood's $2 million request is tied specifically to a
health care clinic created in large part to cater to Tyson employees.
Another $450,000 is for a new center that helps immigrants obtain basic
services, and $210,000 is for the United Way.
**************

Tyson got all the freebies to come to town, and is now packing up and leaving all the expenses to the town. Do you seriously think this town believes it got what it was promised? OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK AROUND. GOOD GOD MISS MOLLY, THE WORLD IS MOVING AND YOU ARE STANDING STILL!

 

[ranch hand]

Having read some time ago that Tyson's low end wages are $9.00 to $11.00 per hour and averaging that for ALL employees (which surely is ridiculously below the reality of the average wage for ALL), one comes up with an annual additional income for the 100 new workers of $1.5Million. That seems a pretty fair annual return for the city on their investment.

Say that average income (BTW, I deducted $100.00 per month for the usual deductions and am sure that is also low) is what ALL 600 employees take home......the incomes for those workers would be minimally $90.Million. They may not all live in Ponca City, but most likely are within the trade area of that city.

I heard on a radio station in Tulsa recently, people discussing the drastic reduction in population of that state, especially in the western side. They were desperately seeking new businesses to employ the people they have and to bring more people into the towns and cities.

That low end wage for Tyson or any other company bashed over low wages is surely not where the bulk of their employees stay forever. As skills and competence of a worker increases, companies will have to pay better wages or lose that employee.

MRJ

Have you figured in the extra cost of school to the city, translators for the schools, health care, as many will not have health insurance and on and on?

 

[Jason]

Chief, the city changed the way they did business, Tyson didn't change that.

Tyson is responsible to comply with whatever original agreement they had with the city, and should pay back any incentives if it is found they didn't meet the requirements agreed to.

If the immigrant workers leave the community the services will not be needed. If they stay they will find other employment and contribute.

 

[the chief]

Chief, the city changed the way they did business, Tyson didn't change that.

Tyson is responsible to comply with whatever original agreement they had with the city, and should pay back any incentives if it is found they didn't meet the requirements agreed to.

If the immigrant workers leave the community the services will not be needed. If they stay they will find other employment and contribute.

Let me see if I have this right: An industrial waste treatment plant moves next door to you and they promise to hire all members of your family. But three years later, they decide to move out. You are now stuck with industrial waste and no way to get rid of it.

However, You changed your way of life. The plant didn't change it for you.

You had no original agreement, so you are out of luck.

Your family will find other work.


Man, you are a nice guy.

 

[Sandhusker]

Chief, the city changed the way they did business, Tyson didn't change that.

Tyson is responsible to comply with whatever original agreement they had with the city, and should pay back any incentives if it is found they didn't meet the requirements agreed to.

If the immigrant workers leave the community the services will not be needed. If they stay they will find other employment and contribute.

The city/county made huge accomodations for Tyson. They changed the way the did business FOR Tyson.

Tyson was the largest employer. Them leaving has a dominoe effect on the whole area - other jobs that supported the Tyson employees will disappear as well. People won't be able to just get another job. Higher unemployment means less money funding a greater need for social services, higher rates of alcoholism, family abuse, etc.... and more burden on law enforcement.

If I was on the city council, I'd look into ways to jack Tyson's property taxes thru the roof to make that empty plant enough of a drain they would open it back up or sell it. You would think there would be ways to use zoning, ordinances, whatever to make that plant the biggest cash-draining liability on Tyson's balance sheet.

 

[Jason]

Chief, the city changed the way they did business, Tyson didn't change that.

Tyson is responsible to comply with whatever original agreement they had with the city, and should pay back any incentives if it is found they didn't meet the requirements agreed to.

If the immigrant workers leave the community the services will not be needed. If they stay they will find other employment and contribute.

Let me see if I have this right: An industrial waste treatment plant moves next door to you and they promise to hire all members of your family. But three years later, they decide to move out. You are now stuck with industrial waste and no way to get rid of it.

However, You changed your way of life. The plant didn't change it for you.

You had no original agreement, so you are out of luck.

Your family will find other work.


Man, you are a nice guy.

Do you even think about your examples?

If a waste treatment plant were to move in next to me, either there is already waste, or it is hauled here to be processed.

If the agreement for them to move here is they hire my family and keep them employed for 3 years, there is no garantee after the 3 year period.

For the plant to move, there would have to be an economic reason. Either waste disappeared or the cost of transporting it rose. Either way, the worst I would face is the situation I started with. Not working for the company and having the same waste as before.

If the company were to break the 3 year employment clause, legal action would be appropriate.

The same of Tyson. If they met all their original commitments, they are free to leave a community if they see fit. Raising taxes arbitrarily or putting a drain on them as Sandhusker suggests would make it very unlikely any business would move into that community ever again.

 

[Tam]

Chief, the city changed the way they did business, Tyson didn't change that.

Tyson is responsible to comply with whatever original agreement they had with the city, and should pay back any incentives if it is found they didn't meet the requirements agreed to.

If the immigrant workers leave the community the services will not be needed. If they stay they will find other employment and contribute.

The city/county made huge accomodations for Tyson. They changed the way the did business FOR Tyson.

Tyson was the largest employer. Them leaving has a dominoe effect on the whole area - other jobs that supported the Tyson employees will disappear as well. People won't be able to just get another job. Higher unemployment means less money funding a greater need for social services, higher rates of alcoholism, family abuse, etc.... and more burden on law enforcement.

If I was on the city council, I'd look into ways to jack Tyson's property taxes thru the roof to make that empty plant enough of a drain they would open it back up or sell it. You would think there would be ways to use zoning, ordinances, whatever to make that plant the biggest cash-draining liability on Tyson's balance sheet.

Gee what happen in the towns where the plants were forced to close because of R-CALFs prolonged border closure? We commented on the Jobs lost and I think some of you R-CALFers comments were, so what they are just a bunch of Mexicans that send their wages back to Mexico. Now that it is Tyson doing something you don't want, your comments are

Them leaving has a dominoe effect on the whole area - other jobs that supported the Tyson employees will disappear as well.

Wasn't there a domino effect with the plants that closed because of R-CALF?

People won't be able to just get another job.

Were those people that lost jobs because of R-CALF able to get other jobs?

Higher unemployment means less money funding a greater need for social services, higher rates of alcoholism, family abuse, etc.... and more burden on law enforcement.

Couldn't this be said about the Unemployment that R-CALF cause with their prolonged border closure?

If I was on the city council, I'd look into ways to jack Tyson's property taxes thru the roof to make that empty plant enough of a drain they would open it back up or sell it.

Is there something that could be done to R-CALF to make them pay for the revenue that they have cost the US beef industry and all supporting industry jobs Or are we just to forget what their prolonged border closure cost everyone?

You would think there would be ways to use zoning, ordinances, whatever to make that plant the biggest cash-draining liability on Tyson's balance sheet

Maybe if R-CALF was forced to pay for all the damages they have caused they wouldn't have enough money left to take anyone else to court.

 

[Sandhusker]

Here we go again......... :roll:

Who closed the border, Tam?

 

[Tam]

Here we go again......... :roll:

Who closed the border, Tam?

WHO PROLONGED IT SANDHUSKER?

 

[Sandhusker]

Here we go again......... :roll:

Who closed the border, Tam?

WHO PROLONGED IT SANDHUSKER?

Just answer the question, Tam. :?

 

[Tam]

Here we go again......... :roll:

Who closed the border, Tam?

WHO PROLONGED IT SANDHUSKER?

Just answer the question, Tam. :?

We both know the answer is the USDA because of the BSE but who prolonged it with a injunction that should have never seen the light of day let alone the inside of a court room? And Could those plants that closed have survived if R-CALF wouldn't have been lieing to keep the border closed? And again what happen to all those workers Sandhusker that you R-calfers claimed were just Mexicans and they were sending their money back to Mexico anyway? Aren't these the same kind of employees that you are talking about when it comes to Tyson? Why should they matter NOW? They didn't when we were warning you about the plant closures that R-CALF was causeing by PROLONGING the BORDER CLOSURE.

 

[Sandhusker]

WHO PROLONGED IT SANDHUSKER?

Just answer the question, Tam. :?

We both know the answer is the USDA because of the BSE but who prolonged it with a injunction that should have never seen the light of day let alone the inside of a court room? And Could those plants that closed have survived if R-CALF wouldn't have been lieing to keep the border closed? And again what happen to all those workers Sandhusker that you R-calfers claimed were just Mexicans and they were sending their money back to Mexico anyway? Aren't these the same kind of employees that you are talking about when it comes to Tyson? Why should they matter NOW? They didn't when we were warning you about the plant closures that R-CALF was causeing by PROLONGING the BORDER CLOSURE.

How long was the border closed, Tam?

 

[RobertMac]

If I was on the city council, I'd look into ways to jack Tyson's property taxes thru the roof to make that empty plant enough of a drain they would open it back up or sell it. You would think there would be ways to use zoning, ordinances, whatever to make that plant the biggest cash-draining liability on Tyson's balance sheet.

Great Sandidni, you forget the Supreme Court Eminent Domain ruling? :twisted: :wink:

 

[Tam]

Just answer the question, Tam. :?

We both know the answer is the USDA because of the BSE but who prolonged it with a injunction that should have never seen the light of day let alone the inside of a court room? And Could those plants that closed have survived if R-CALF wouldn't have been lieing to keep the border closed? And again what happen to all those workers Sandhusker that you R-calfers claimed were just Mexicans and they were sending their money back to Mexico anyway? Aren't these the same kind of employees that you are talking about when it comes to Tyson? Why should they matter NOW? They didn't when we were warning you about the plant closures that R-CALF was causeing by PROLONGING the BORDER CLOSURE.

How long was the border closed, Tam?

I answered You question now you answer mine.
Who Prolonged it?
Could those plants have survived if the border closure wasn't prolonged ?
What happen to all those workers that you R-calfers claimed were just Mexicans and they were sending their money back to Mexico anyway?
Aren't these the same kind of employees that you are talking about when it comes to Tyson?
Why should they matter NOW?
Wasn't there a domino effect with the plants that closed because of R-CALF?
Couldn't this be said about the Unemployment that R-CALF cause with their prolonged border closure?
Start with these Sandhusker Let us see how you can justify ripping Tyson for this when R-CALF caused more than a few to loose their jobs because of their INJUNCTION

 

[RobertMac]

Who Prolonged it?

THE LAW! If there wasn't any legal grounds, the judge would have thrown it out. Now you are going to tell me R-CALF bought the judge...if that's the case, Tyson bought Strom! We have a legal system and it works. Get over it!