Submissions tenuously related to economics, light on economic analysis, or from perspectives other than those of economists will be removed. This will keep /r/economics distinct from the many related subreddits. Further explanation.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
Donnie King (ceo) made 34 million last year alone. That would cover about 1/3 of the salaries for that plant for the year assuming avg $60k annual salary.
For the record: I hate Trump too. But not everything that happens on earth is his fault.
US cattle herds have been declining the past six years due to drought in the Southwest. On top of that, there was a screwworm outbreak in Mexico, where we import a lot of cattle from. What that means is, there are simply not enough cattle to process to keep this cattle processing plant open.
In a "big picture" way you could say the drought is worsened by climate change and Trump's policies certainly don't help climate change, but if Donald Trump had never been elected climate change would be no different than it is now and there would still be a drought.
Other than that, Trump has actually been very rancher-friendly by appointing a rancher to run BLM, who has just been giving federal land to ranchers and trampling all over conservation laws so these big companies can graze their cattle for practically free on what are supposed to be federal lands.
And a contributing factor to why ranchers aren't making a greater effort to invest in rebuilding their herds is the cost of debt right now. They are focusing more on paying down old debt, than taking on new debt to start breeding more cattle. Trump, of course, has been improperly pressuring the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, which would incentivize ranchers to take on more debt to rebuild herds.
And of course he is upping our import of beef from South America where the Amazon is being razed to make grazing land for cattle, but they obviously process the beef there instead of sending live cattle that far.
Personally I'm horribly, horribly against his policies that are helping the beef industry. Let the plant close, let beef cost what it SHOULD cost to reflect its environmental impact. But electing Harris would not have kept this plant open, and if anything she probably would've made it worse by not giving ranchers free range to federal land (which I would've supported).
Ultimately this is a local issue. Mayors and governors need to be working to attract business and jobs. They can do this through zoning changes, tax incentives, business-friendly laws, etc. But when cattle to be processed are at multi-decade lows, cattle processing plants are going to close, and the town that is the least profitable is going to be the one to close.
Wasn't the screw worm situation worsened by DOGE cuts, or did that only affect cattle within the US? I'm not familiar with the details, and that was like 790 Trump incidents ago.
Basically we stopped funding the UN-run program and started funding our own program. USAID contributed to the UN-run program and that was obviously cut, but the USDA program to contain the screwworm outbreak has received a lot more emergency funding than the UN program ever did.
I mean, I think ending USAID was an asinine decision and Trump clearly does not understand the value and importance of soft power. And I would rather this be a globally cooperative effort than solely US. But I don't think the UN was going to end the outbreak any faster than the USDA program will.
US cattle herds have been declining the past six years due to drought in the Southwest. On top of that, there wasa screwworm outbreak in Mexico*, where we import a lot of cattle from. What that means is, there are simply not enough cattle to process to keep this cattle processing plant open.*
I would point out that the program to combat screwworm outbreaks was cancelled by Trump. So that outbreak was what these folk voted for.
And the subsequent shutdown of their processing plant due to the lack of supply... which they voted for.
No it wasnt... in fact it's been renewed by Trump. We stopped producing sterile flies en masse a long time ago bc the situation was contained. In the past two years screwworm started to spread again, so Biden closed the border to Mexican cattle. Trump briefly reopened it for a few months when it seemed safe, then shut it back down when more outbreaks were spotted. Now the administration is investing in producing millions of sterile flies again. He did cut the USDA budget but this outbreak started under Biden in other countries; it's not the fault of any US president. It's likely the result of storms blowing the flies into Central America from the Caribbean.
A list of terminated programs sent to Congress this week and obtained by Agri-Pulse includes $250 million that went to projects housed under the FAO’s Global Health Security Program.
Among the GHS projects killed were some dedicated to monitoring and containing avian flu and New World Screwworm in Central America, monitoring avian flu outbreaks in Asia and improving the detection of new strains, and efforts to combat swine fever, according to a person familiar with the situation granted anonymity to speak frankly.
That article is about the US cutting its funding to the global initiative run by the UN. And trust me, I'm not saying cutting USAID was a good thing at all. Trump clearly does not understand the massive value of soft power, and the US being a major contributor to these global projects was a very good thing not only for the world but for us.
However, despite cutting our funding to the UN-run program, we've been increasing our funding of the USDA-run program. Per the article you shared $381m of funding to the UN was cut that covered 100+ programs, so I doubt even half of that was specifically going toward the screwworm outbreak specifically. Meanwhile around $200m from USDA funds have been spent specifically targeting the screwworm outbreak.
I think you bolded the wrong part. Try "US Cattle herds have been declining for the past six years" ..due to drought.
Mexican cattle imports over 2025 are down about 50%, or 200,000 head. Current US cattle herd size: 86.7M head, down from 94.7M in 2019, or less than a 10% reduction (8M), but still way higher in raw numbers than Mexican imports.
A 50% reduction in cattle imported from Mexico, due to a screwworm epidemic that was caused by the elimination of the US program to eliminate screwworm epidemics in Mexico and central America, is not an insignificant number.
And the 86.7 million head of cattle data point is from 1 January 2025... when the plant had sufficient supply to operate. Back when there was no screwworm epidemic in Mexican cattle.
So you're blaming a plant closing because of a reduction in Mexican imports - 200kish head - when there's 433x that available in the US - it just costs too much to buy and process when people won't eat it?
You can't deny the plant had supply back in January. And the number of head then was 86.7 million.
The only reduction in head is from outside the US (by July 2025, the number of head of cattle in the US had increased). Therefore, unless Tyson is lying, the lack of supply is from the missing head of cattle, ie: Mexican cattle.
Which was caused by the screwworm epidemic that Trump's regime instigated by cancelling the program that was eradicating it. Which these townsfolk voted for.
---
As Sherlock Holmes said, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."
Because the US program was to seed sterile screwworm flies throughout Mexico and the rest of central America. Which greatly cut down on the number of fertile screwworm eggs that could hatch throughout the region.
But you do highlight several things that are causing this shut down. But at this point, not interested in causation…. Everything must be held against him until the nation turns on him. Perception over reality and facts.
Then he has to be brought to answer for EVERYTHING he’s ever done. Then whe has to have his assists and his children’s assets stripped away. Then we bring to justice the entire cabinet and then every ice agent. Until then I never want to hear justice is blind and fair for all.
His damage can’t not stand one second past his presidency.
The meat industry is now dealing with the after effects of the significant cattle herd decreases that occurred during the Biden administration. Less cows to kill, less need for meatpacking, closed meatpacking plants. Less cows to make more cows, longer it will take for the heard to rebound, less need for meatpacking plants.
The trend in head count has been trending down since 1965 (120-140mil) but sure let’s just blame Biden for an industry that has been in decline for the past 60 years.cattle inventory
The herd decreases under Biden were, and remain, multifaceted; involving everything from multi decade drought out West, to international trade macros. All of which put the entire industry on a tight rope. Trump's on again/off again tariffs on both feed and cattle effectively threw a hurricane wind at it.
I'd argue though that the biggest influence that sent the industry teetering is the current ban on all Mexican cattle imports as a result of a deadly and highly contagious screwworm outbreak in their herds. It's that outbreak and subsequent import ban that most directly led to the closure of this plant.
So what? Should they keep the plant open forever? Even if it doesn't make a profit?
It's a sad story. That has repeated 100,000 times over throughout history. But it happens for a reason and it should continue to happen. Because the alternative is we do dumb unproductive inefficient bullshit. Just for the sake of feels.
I am a little bit confused here about "extremes." Keeping it open or closing it? Are those the two extremes? They don't seem like extremes as much as a yes/no option.
Exactly. They could make less, but they chose to make as much as possible, then close things down and leave their employees and communities high and dry. This was a choice.
If there isn't enough business to keep the plant open....
Then, are you actually proposing that he pays out of his own pocket to keep a plant running that isn't producing and pay employees that aren't working?
It's like socialist have no concept of math or logic.
You capitalists thinking that's not how the system already works is hilarious. The point the person is making is Donald Trump is a billionaire parasite that only leeches off the system while devastating those who actually produce.
The only reason this factory is closing is because the private banks chose not to print new money for this community. That's it. Instead, they are printing more money and giving the assets towards the top while the corresponding liabilities flow downward.
Letting factories and large communities simply die is not only inhumane but economically stupid. This town will likely become just like the Rust Belt towns this happened to: it grows older, crime and fentanyl move in, buildings needed for business become unmaintainable, the people left go on government benefits just to survive, etc. It'd be much cheaper to retrain the workers, remodel the factory to build new things and build new housing in denser area closer to the center to relieve sprawl. But then people would start to see that they never needed billionaires all along, so the private banks are making sure politicians supporting such ideas don't get elected.
Edit: the original comment was about the company CEO, I responded regarding the larger political economy.
I was going to comment about how in r/economics, a post like this gets upvotes rather than being removed when the only actual point made was the person commenting is fictionally illiterate in how economics or economies of any sort function.
So? Corporate CEOs are a big part of how billionaires keep their position. So just remove the billionaire's name and replace it with billionaire-enabler. Nothing has changed. Private banks print credit where they want, an unelected few accountable to no one decide whose communities live and die.
Calling someone else "uninformed" while thinking "paying employees that aren't working" would be economically different from the current system where the top doesn't work is hideous. But keep calling others "uninformed". Maybe someday you'll stumble upon someone with even less economic sense than yourself (though not likely).
Last time I checked Donald Trump is responsible for 100% of the demand of those that “actually produce” his goods. And private banks didn’t give the community money because there is no demand for their goods. It’s simple supple and demand so stop making it complicate with your tin foil hats.
No he isn't. The private banks are responsible for the overwhelming majority of demand. Private banks didn't give the community money because that community has no real power and are expendable to the banks. Demand doesn't create capital. Money is printed which in turn gives the recipient of the credit the power to decide where it goes. The credit creates the demand, not the other way around. Yes, it is simple supply and demand. The supply of credit creates economic demand. It's not "tin foil" conspiracy. It's how things actually work. The fact that you call it "tin foil" shows you don't know how endogenous money works.
No private banks don’t control demand and I know that because they just want to give out loans and it’s not any member of the community that goes into the bank to get it. It’s the guy that has the customers in demand for his goods that requires labor to create those goods. No communities aren’t just inventing products and connecting to markets. By and large that’s an individual pursuit you can say banks control credit all you want but no they don’t control demand. Consumers demand, business leaders identify demand and build supply chains to satisfy it.
And no it’s not on the consumers to be forced to demand something. Y’all crazy if you think the world works like that.
Yes they do. By controlling credit, they control whether or not demand is met. Everyone has demand for transportation, healthcare, housing, etc but whether or not they get it depends (mostly) on the private banks (and to a much smaller extent, the government). The only reason it is the case that only some members even bother is because they are already aware of the conditions to receive credit.
This was the whole point that Keynes realized about markets in a fractional reserve financial system with endogenous money. That's why government spending can induce demand where previously there wasn't any. It's the direct extension of newly created money out of thin air into the economy that then fuels demand. Credit controls demand, not the other way around. This is why aggregate demand fell in the aftermath of the GFC: the banks pulled back on extending credit which caused demand to tank because you cannot effectively demand in the market without the supply of credit.
Our system's rules prioritize private business over socially owned enterprises. Socially owned enterprises face regulatory hurdles, unenforceable contract disputes, etc. This is because socially owned enterprises keep profits within and lessen dependence on banks. Consumers can demand anything they want, if enough credit hasn't been given to them, their "demands" go nowhere.
Consumers are already forced to demand lol. You don't have a choice in taking the train to work because public transportation is severely lacking in the US. You don't have a choice to work for a credit recipient entity to get healthcare. The list goes on. If you think consumers can't be forced to demand things, then you clearly don't know how the consulting, marketing, Big Tech and financial sector work. They use psychological knowledge to shape what people want, then produce what they told people to want while people think they freely chose it. Y'all crazy if you think the world doesn't work that way.
Right? He’s only gotten $34 million dollars, it’s chump change!
Why do you want to hump the legs of billionaires? While you slobber over them they don’t know or care if you exist and if you got anywhere near them they’d have security remove you as if you were no more than a pesky dirty fly.
Good example of why there needs to be a diversity of industry in each town, city, state, etc. for long-term success. Should never rely on just one major company or industry. Because if they go belly-up, then the entire area does.
Tyson has had a negative profit margin for at least 3 years. The fact they need to be closing plants and shutting down operations is not a surprise in the least.
EDIT: as has been pointed out below, the above is incorrect. Tyson's last 3 years of margins are 0.87%, 1.5%, and -1.23%. So only unprofitable 1 year, but definitely struggling.
You are correct, they haven't been negative except for the year of 2023 (-1.23%).
However, I do not agree that 0.87% YTD and 1.5% last year is "doing well." In fact, quite the opposite.
Perhaps "the last year they did well was 4 years ago" would be on point. Further, they are turning the business around by closing facilities like this one. It is unfortunate that it needs to happen, but businesses need to react to the times.
Did you also notice the paychecks for the entire C suite increased every year? What about looking at their foreign investments and spin off of foreign operations? There is a reason they lost money, it was entirely intentional.
At a profit margin of 1.5% where inflation is in the 3s, short term fed rates in the 3s and 4s, if you don't believe you can consistently do better in the future, you may as well return money to investors so they can buy treasurys.
If they are indeed cooking the books, then their already low profit margins would be even worse. Which of course implies a lot more plants shutting down in the near future.
Why are you accusing a company that is barely hanging on of cooking the books?
Aside from GRR BUSINESSES ARE BAD, what actual evidence do you have?
While you cannot prove a negative, I'd suggest if they WERE cooking the books, they'd do it so they look GOOD and the stock price goes up so the people doing the cooking are making more money, not less, right?
Hi, did you mean to say "more than"?
Explanation: If you didn't mean 'more than' you might have forgotten a comma.
Sorry if I made a mistake! Please let me know if I did.
Have a great day! Statistics
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
Margins are important but the relation with layoffs isn’t that clear.
In the age of conglomerates with diversified divisions you might have some divisions operating with negative margins and be considered healthy for operational reasons (such as its worth to have control of a certain step at a price in comparison to relying on someone else), or you can have companies with colossal margins and risk layoffs just because the expectation is even larger margins.
The ideal margin for every corporation is zero, because it means you’ll pay zero taxes, not a single dollar goes wasted in taxes, hence maximum efficiency.
Because you are investing in the company value. If the company is investing all their revenues (and something) to conquer a position of leadership in the market the value is that now the company controls X% of the entire market.
And your example is dumb as it gets because your salary would be your gross revenues, and that's why, if you can, you max out your 401k, HSA, whatever you can to reduce your taxable income... DOH!
In the same way, if you can, you itemize deductions to minimize your tax burden.
> Because you are investing in the company value. If the company is investing all their revenues (and something) to conquer a position of leadership in the market the value is that now the company controls X% of the entire market.
What's the point of investing in the company value if you will never see a cent of profit?
The goal of "conquer a position of leadership in the market" is to then make huge profits from it, and payout the shareholders/investors. What the hell is the point of doing that if you end up making no profit afterwards? Who is going to invest in that?
Amazon spent 20 years making no profit so it can spend the next 20 making gargantuan profits. According to you, they must be stupid to not just keep throwing all their profits down a put so they don't pay taxes on it!
You don't seem to understand that the goal of public for profit companies is to make money for their shareholders and that can only happen if at some point they make some damn profit.
> And your example is dumb as it gets because your salary would be your gross revenues, and that's why,
And investor's earnings from an investment comes entirely from the profits, or selling to someone else who predicts higher future returns/profit than you.
You don't seem to understand the difference between the investor and the company. Yes, the company can spend all of its money paying the employees and never giving a cent back to the investor, But why on earth would the investor agree to that?
> if you can, you max out your 401k, HSA, whatever you can to reduce your taxable income... DOH!
Are you gonna stop making money just to avoid taxes?
No?
Then you realize how stupid the proposition would be for an investor.
> In the same way, if you can, you itemize deductions to minimize your tax burden.
You do realizing reduce tax burdens is not the same thing as actively avoiding making income completely just so you'll never make money.
Ask Amazon. It operated with negative margins for years. Ask Walmart.
Who says you never see a cent of profits? You buy stocks (invest in the company) based on what they are doing and because you believe in the trajectory, not because you are going to see money out of your stocks, unless you sell them realizing that value.
Tell me about how I didn’t realized any profit in a meme stock like Tesla as an investor. Tesla has negative profit margins since the inception up to 2020 and yet investors realized colossal profits in the same period trading stocks.
Company profit margins have very little to do with what you can earn in the stock (investors) market.
It couldn't be because they're overpaying their executives, now could it?
A lot of people blame unions for killing the auto industry in Detroit. Japan had unions when they became the world's leading auto manufacturers. The difference is Detroit executives made 300x the average employees. Japan executives made 10x theirs.
Since they were doing well 4 years ago, and executive compensation is public information for publicly traded companies, why don't you do the research and get back to us. When was the most recent contract signed? What is the compensation based on in terms of performance? What is the expected income? Then compare that to the prior decade as well as peer organizations.
Thank goodness the work has already been done. There are numerous studies which show, while not a perfectly linear equation, there is certainly correlation between overly large executive to average employee pay gaps... Here is just one
I haven't, at all. Unlike most entities on reddit, I don't come here to stay in a nice warm bubble of confirmation bias - check my post history.
I'm more than willing to learn and admit I'm wrong. Heck, my first post in this thread does exactly that. However, in order to prove me wrong you actually have to do work. Which apparently is something you prefer not to do. "Trust me bro" from a random thing on the internet is not a basis for influence.
The one thing you can tell from this is not a single person there has a functioning brain. Being MAGA means they cannot even help themselves and deserve every bad thing that happens to them. The leopards will be feasting there for months.
One of the biggest things everybody is ignoring is that Tyson COULD sell this fully functional and operating facility with a built in, well trained work force. It won't though because the facility is worth more to the company as a tax write off for the total loss than it is to the company as a write off where they can only take the losses of selling for less than was spent to build the plant.
Even with whatever PILOT program benefits they got so they pay no property taxes at all. Zero.
Selling the property would be easy. Selling it at a price where the buyer can make operating profits would be easy. But why take a cash infusion that will offset income tax losses to the IRS when their accountant isn't going to charge a dime extra to file it as a total loss?
In the end, that is much easier to do than going through the process of selling this plant no matter how easy selling it would be.
Who would buy it? Who has expressed interest? Why would they buy it? What is the current status of the meat packing industry in the US?
Given that americans are moving away from eating beef due to high costs of maintaining herds, feed, etc. in a drought, cattle herds are low. How is buying a meat processing plant that will not be profitable because it won't have as much cattle to process a good idea for any business?
Economics-ModTeam | a day ago
Submissions tenuously related to economics, light on economic analysis, or from perspectives other than those of economists will be removed. This will keep /r/economics distinct from the many related subreddits. Further explanation.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
AWill33 | a day ago
Donnie King (ceo) made 34 million last year alone. That would cover about 1/3 of the salaries for that plant for the year assuming avg $60k annual salary.
Flashy_Jello_9520 | a day ago
Wonder who Nebraska voted for.
dwarffy | a day ago
Looks like Dawson County, where the small town city of the article is at, voted Trump at 74% to 24% Harris.
Kranmonkey | a day ago
Great, im happy they're getting what they wanted.
great_apple | a day ago
For the record: I hate Trump too. But not everything that happens on earth is his fault.
US cattle herds have been declining the past six years due to drought in the Southwest. On top of that, there was a screwworm outbreak in Mexico, where we import a lot of cattle from. What that means is, there are simply not enough cattle to process to keep this cattle processing plant open.
In a "big picture" way you could say the drought is worsened by climate change and Trump's policies certainly don't help climate change, but if Donald Trump had never been elected climate change would be no different than it is now and there would still be a drought.
Other than that, Trump has actually been very rancher-friendly by appointing a rancher to run BLM, who has just been giving federal land to ranchers and trampling all over conservation laws so these big companies can graze their cattle for practically free on what are supposed to be federal lands.
And a contributing factor to why ranchers aren't making a greater effort to invest in rebuilding their herds is the cost of debt right now. They are focusing more on paying down old debt, than taking on new debt to start breeding more cattle. Trump, of course, has been improperly pressuring the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, which would incentivize ranchers to take on more debt to rebuild herds.
And of course he is upping our import of beef from South America where the Amazon is being razed to make grazing land for cattle, but they obviously process the beef there instead of sending live cattle that far.
Personally I'm horribly, horribly against his policies that are helping the beef industry. Let the plant close, let beef cost what it SHOULD cost to reflect its environmental impact. But electing Harris would not have kept this plant open, and if anything she probably would've made it worse by not giving ranchers free range to federal land (which I would've supported).
Ultimately this is a local issue. Mayors and governors need to be working to attract business and jobs. They can do this through zoning changes, tax incentives, business-friendly laws, etc. But when cattle to be processed are at multi-decade lows, cattle processing plants are going to close, and the town that is the least profitable is going to be the one to close.
Stinkycheezmonky | a day ago
Wasn't the screw worm situation worsened by DOGE cuts, or did that only affect cattle within the US? I'm not familiar with the details, and that was like 790 Trump incidents ago.
great_apple | a day ago
Basically we stopped funding the UN-run program and started funding our own program. USAID contributed to the UN-run program and that was obviously cut, but the USDA program to contain the screwworm outbreak has received a lot more emergency funding than the UN program ever did.
I mean, I think ending USAID was an asinine decision and Trump clearly does not understand the value and importance of soft power. And I would rather this be a globally cooperative effort than solely US. But I don't think the UN was going to end the outbreak any faster than the USDA program will.
Happy_Feet333 | a day ago
US cattle herds have been declining the past six years due to drought in the Southwest. On top of that, there was a screwworm outbreak in Mexico*, where we import a lot of cattle from. What that means is, there are simply not enough cattle to process to keep this cattle processing plant open.*
I would point out that the program to combat screwworm outbreaks was cancelled by Trump. So that outbreak was what these folk voted for.
And the subsequent shutdown of their processing plant due to the lack of supply... which they voted for.
great_apple | a day ago
No it wasnt... in fact it's been renewed by Trump. We stopped producing sterile flies en masse a long time ago bc the situation was contained. In the past two years screwworm started to spread again, so Biden closed the border to Mexican cattle. Trump briefly reopened it for a few months when it seemed safe, then shut it back down when more outbreaks were spotted. Now the administration is investing in producing millions of sterile flies again. He did cut the USDA budget but this outbreak started under Biden in other countries; it's not the fault of any US president. It's likely the result of storms blowing the flies into Central America from the Caribbean.
Happy_Feet333 | a day ago
I guess they realized their mistake?
A list of terminated programs sent to Congress this week and obtained by Agri-Pulse includes $250 million that went to projects housed under the FAO’s Global Health Security Program.
Among the GHS projects killed were some dedicated to monitoring and containing avian flu and New World Screwworm in Central America, monitoring avian flu outbreaks in Asia and improving the detection of new strains, and efforts to combat swine fever, according to a person familiar with the situation granted anonymity to speak frankly.
https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22636-bird-flu-screwworm-monitoring-among-foreign-aid-programs-killed-by-trump
(Dated: 03/27/25)
great_apple | a day ago
No, they just internalized the spending.
That article is about the US cutting its funding to the global initiative run by the UN. And trust me, I'm not saying cutting USAID was a good thing at all. Trump clearly does not understand the massive value of soft power, and the US being a major contributor to these global projects was a very good thing not only for the world but for us.
However, despite cutting our funding to the UN-run program, we've been increasing our funding of the USDA-run program. Per the article you shared $381m of funding to the UN was cut that covered 100+ programs, so I doubt even half of that was specifically going toward the screwworm outbreak specifically. Meanwhile around $200m from USDA funds have been spent specifically targeting the screwworm outbreak.
Test-User-One | a day ago
I think you bolded the wrong part. Try "US Cattle herds have been declining for the past six years" ..due to drought.
Mexican cattle imports over 2025 are down about 50%, or 200,000 head. Current US cattle herd size: 86.7M head, down from 94.7M in 2019, or less than a 10% reduction (8M), but still way higher in raw numbers than Mexican imports.
Happy_Feet333 | a day ago
A 50% reduction in cattle imported from Mexico, due to a screwworm epidemic that was caused by the elimination of the US program to eliminate screwworm epidemics in Mexico and central America, is not an insignificant number.
And the 86.7 million head of cattle data point is from 1 January 2025... when the plant had sufficient supply to operate. Back when there was no screwworm epidemic in Mexican cattle.
https://u.osu.edu/beef/2025/12/17/a-review-of-2025-beef-and-cattle-markets/
Test-User-One | a day ago
So you're blaming a plant closing because of a reduction in Mexican imports - 200kish head - when there's 433x that available in the US - it just costs too much to buy and process when people won't eat it?
Yeah, okay, you do you.
Happy_Feet333 | a day ago
You can't deny the plant had supply back in January. And the number of head then was 86.7 million.
The only reduction in head is from outside the US (by July 2025, the number of head of cattle in the US had increased). Therefore, unless Tyson is lying, the lack of supply is from the missing head of cattle, ie: Mexican cattle.
Which was caused by the screwworm epidemic that Trump's regime instigated by cancelling the program that was eradicating it. Which these townsfolk voted for.
---
As Sherlock Holmes said, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."
ohanse | a day ago
How would American policy affect Mexican screwworm
Happy_Feet333 | a day ago
Because the US program was to seed sterile screwworm flies throughout Mexico and the rest of central America. Which greatly cut down on the number of fertile screwworm eggs that could hatch throughout the region.
ohanse | a day ago
Got it thx
SgtBaxter | a day ago
Americans paid for and implemented programs to combat screwworms involving the release of sterile flies.
ohanse | a day ago
Thx
gjovef | a day ago
But you do highlight several things that are causing this shut down. But at this point, not interested in causation…. Everything must be held against him until the nation turns on him. Perception over reality and facts.
Then he has to be brought to answer for EVERYTHING he’s ever done. Then whe has to have his assists and his children’s assets stripped away. Then we bring to justice the entire cabinet and then every ice agent. Until then I never want to hear justice is blind and fair for all.
His damage can’t not stand one second past his presidency.
great_apple | a day ago
> Perception over reality and facts
Hmmm who does that remind me of. "Alternative facts".
ChuckVader | a day ago
If they wanted help, they should have been in the Epstein files apparently
xboxhaxorz | a day ago
How dare you not join in the echo chamber of blaming trump for everything in every single conversation, you must be maga lol
Every sub finds some way to toss trump in the conversation, its a cult
I didnt vote for him and hes not on my mind 24/7, but he is for a lot of people
gjovef | a day ago
Yeah injustice is like that.
JustDontBeFat_GodDam | a day ago
So you’re happy the 24% are losing their jobs? It’s true, regressives really do eat their own eventually
Kranmonkey | a day ago
Whatever you say dipshit.
Kazuma5610 | a day ago
The meat industry is now dealing with the after effects of the significant cattle herd decreases that occurred during the Biden administration. Less cows to kill, less need for meatpacking, closed meatpacking plants. Less cows to make more cows, longer it will take for the heard to rebound, less need for meatpacking plants.
American Farm Bureau
Under Biden’s administration, US cattle herd hit a 73 year low. But yes, go ahead and blame Trump for this.
GatoPreto83 | a day ago
The trend in head count has been trending down since 1965 (120-140mil) but sure let’s just blame Biden for an industry that has been in decline for the past 60 years.cattle inventory
ManOfDiscovery | a day ago
The herd decreases under Biden were, and remain, multifaceted; involving everything from multi decade drought out West, to international trade macros. All of which put the entire industry on a tight rope. Trump's on again/off again tariffs on both feed and cattle effectively threw a hurricane wind at it.
I'd argue though that the biggest influence that sent the industry teetering is the current ban on all Mexican cattle imports as a result of a deadly and highly contagious screwworm outbreak in their herds. It's that outbreak and subsequent import ban that most directly led to the closure of this plant.
TenderfootGungi | a day ago
Which happened primarily due to a prolonged drought. Import restrictions (some due to screwworms) has not helped.
Optimal-Archer3973 | a day ago
And the screwworm issue is entirely on trump. He is the one who canceled all actions and funding to prevent them from being the problem they are now.
Cool_Lame690 | a day ago
He also invented the screwworm
gjovef | a day ago
Yeah sucks doesn’t it? Now you want to talk truth and facts? Ha!
Cool_Lame690 | a day ago
I'm sure if Kamala were president this wouldn't be happening.
rasp215 | a day ago
His salary was 1.66 million. The rest rest was equity.
knitlit | a day ago
Did tyson do any stock buy backs this year which would increase the value of stocks he owns?
GSDragoon | a day ago
Yes, and dividends... Disgusting... https://www.tipranks.com/stocks/tsn/buybacks#
Destinyciello | a day ago
So what? Should they keep the plant open forever? Even if it doesn't make a profit?
It's a sad story. That has repeated 100,000 times over throughout history. But it happens for a reason and it should continue to happen. Because the alternative is we do dumb unproductive inefficient bullshit. Just for the sake of feels.
AWill33 | a day ago
And those 2 extremes are the only alternative right?
gimpwiz | a day ago
I am a little bit confused here about "extremes." Keeping it open or closing it? Are those the two extremes? They don't seem like extremes as much as a yes/no option.
Destinyciello | a day ago
We want to allow private enterprise to truly remain private. So yes that sort of is the 2 alternatives.
If it's their plant. They can do whatever they want with it. No questions asked.
SoftballGuy | a day ago
Exactly. They could make less, but they chose to make as much as possible, then close things down and leave their employees and communities high and dry. This was a choice.
SuchDogeHodler | a day ago
If there isn't enough business to keep the plant open....
Then, are you actually proposing that he pays out of his own pocket to keep a plant running that isn't producing and pay employees that aren't working?
It's like socialist have no concept of math or logic.
WeirdProudAndHungry | a day ago
You capitalists thinking that's not how the system already works is hilarious. The point the person is making is Donald Trump is a billionaire parasite that only leeches off the system while devastating those who actually produce.
The only reason this factory is closing is because the private banks chose not to print new money for this community. That's it. Instead, they are printing more money and giving the assets towards the top while the corresponding liabilities flow downward.
Letting factories and large communities simply die is not only inhumane but economically stupid. This town will likely become just like the Rust Belt towns this happened to: it grows older, crime and fentanyl move in, buildings needed for business become unmaintainable, the people left go on government benefits just to survive, etc. It'd be much cheaper to retrain the workers, remodel the factory to build new things and build new housing in denser area closer to the center to relieve sprawl. But then people would start to see that they never needed billionaires all along, so the private banks are making sure politicians supporting such ideas don't get elected.
Edit: the original comment was about the company CEO, I responded regarding the larger political economy.
Happy_Feet333 | a day ago
Private banks print money?
Really?
Do go on...
[OP] Dont_think_Do | a day ago
I was going to comment about how in r/economics, a post like this gets upvotes rather than being removed when the only actual point made was the person commenting is fictionally illiterate in how economics or economies of any sort function.
TheMightySoup | a day ago
Donnie King is the name of Tyson’s CEO. The fact that you typed a big diatribe about Trump is hilarious.
WeirdProudAndHungry | a day ago
So? Corporate CEOs are a big part of how billionaires keep their position. So just remove the billionaire's name and replace it with billionaire-enabler. Nothing has changed. Private banks print credit where they want, an unelected few accountable to no one decide whose communities live and die.
TheMightySoup | a day ago
lol… good save, angry, uninformed citizen
WeirdProudAndHungry | a day ago
Calling someone else "uninformed" while thinking "paying employees that aren't working" would be economically different from the current system where the top doesn't work is hideous. But keep calling others "uninformed". Maybe someday you'll stumble upon someone with even less economic sense than yourself (though not likely).
Blackout38 | a day ago
Last time I checked Donald Trump is responsible for 100% of the demand of those that “actually produce” his goods. And private banks didn’t give the community money because there is no demand for their goods. It’s simple supple and demand so stop making it complicate with your tin foil hats.
WeirdProudAndHungry | a day ago
No he isn't. The private banks are responsible for the overwhelming majority of demand. Private banks didn't give the community money because that community has no real power and are expendable to the banks. Demand doesn't create capital. Money is printed which in turn gives the recipient of the credit the power to decide where it goes. The credit creates the demand, not the other way around. Yes, it is simple supply and demand. The supply of credit creates economic demand. It's not "tin foil" conspiracy. It's how things actually work. The fact that you call it "tin foil" shows you don't know how endogenous money works.
Blackout38 | a day ago
No private banks don’t control demand and I know that because they just want to give out loans and it’s not any member of the community that goes into the bank to get it. It’s the guy that has the customers in demand for his goods that requires labor to create those goods. No communities aren’t just inventing products and connecting to markets. By and large that’s an individual pursuit you can say banks control credit all you want but no they don’t control demand. Consumers demand, business leaders identify demand and build supply chains to satisfy it.
And no it’s not on the consumers to be forced to demand something. Y’all crazy if you think the world works like that.
WeirdProudAndHungry | a day ago
Yes they do. By controlling credit, they control whether or not demand is met. Everyone has demand for transportation, healthcare, housing, etc but whether or not they get it depends (mostly) on the private banks (and to a much smaller extent, the government). The only reason it is the case that only some members even bother is because they are already aware of the conditions to receive credit.
This was the whole point that Keynes realized about markets in a fractional reserve financial system with endogenous money. That's why government spending can induce demand where previously there wasn't any. It's the direct extension of newly created money out of thin air into the economy that then fuels demand. Credit controls demand, not the other way around. This is why aggregate demand fell in the aftermath of the GFC: the banks pulled back on extending credit which caused demand to tank because you cannot effectively demand in the market without the supply of credit.
Our system's rules prioritize private business over socially owned enterprises. Socially owned enterprises face regulatory hurdles, unenforceable contract disputes, etc. This is because socially owned enterprises keep profits within and lessen dependence on banks. Consumers can demand anything they want, if enough credit hasn't been given to them, their "demands" go nowhere.
Consumers are already forced to demand lol. You don't have a choice in taking the train to work because public transportation is severely lacking in the US. You don't have a choice to work for a credit recipient entity to get healthcare. The list goes on. If you think consumers can't be forced to demand things, then you clearly don't know how the consulting, marketing, Big Tech and financial sector work. They use psychological knowledge to shape what people want, then produce what they told people to want while people think they freely chose it. Y'all crazy if you think the world doesn't work that way.
AWill33 | a day ago
Not what I said or meant. Try asking a question or two before you jump to every assumption on that mat
TigerLily98226 | a day ago
Right? He’s only gotten $34 million dollars, it’s chump change!
Why do you want to hump the legs of billionaires? While you slobber over them they don’t know or care if you exist and if you got anywhere near them they’d have security remove you as if you were no more than a pesky dirty fly.
69_carats | a day ago
Good example of why there needs to be a diversity of industry in each town, city, state, etc. for long-term success. Should never rely on just one major company or industry. Because if they go belly-up, then the entire area does.
BlackDS | a day ago
Looking at you, West Virginia coal mines
Test-User-One | a day ago
Tyson has had a negative profit margin for at least 3 years. The fact they need to be closing plants and shutting down operations is not a surprise in the least.
EDIT: as has been pointed out below, the above is incorrect. Tyson's last 3 years of margins are 0.87%, 1.5%, and -1.23%. So only unprofitable 1 year, but definitely struggling.
Stlr_Mn | a day ago
No they haven’t. They had one negative quater in 2023. They’re doing well.
https://mlq.ai/stocks/0LHR.L/profit-margin/#:~:text=Detailed%20information%20about%20Tyson%20Foods's%20profit%20margins%2C,View%20historical%20data%20on%20the%20company's%20margins.
Test-User-One | a day ago
You are correct, they haven't been negative except for the year of 2023 (-1.23%).
However, I do not agree that 0.87% YTD and 1.5% last year is "doing well." In fact, quite the opposite.
Perhaps "the last year they did well was 4 years ago" would be on point. Further, they are turning the business around by closing facilities like this one. It is unfortunate that it needs to happen, but businesses need to react to the times.
Optimal-Archer3973 | a day ago
Did you also notice the paychecks for the entire C suite increased every year? What about looking at their foreign investments and spin off of foreign operations? There is a reason they lost money, it was entirely intentional.
gimpwiz | a day ago
At a profit margin of 1.5% where inflation is in the 3s, short term fed rates in the 3s and 4s, if you don't believe you can consistently do better in the future, you may as well return money to investors so they can buy treasurys.
Less_Volume8174 | a day ago
Why are you defending a company that more then likely are cooking the books like every other company because of deregulation?
ZABKA_TM | a day ago
If they are indeed cooking the books, then their already low profit margins would be even worse. Which of course implies a lot more plants shutting down in the near future.
Iggyhopper | a day ago
A plant doesnt need to shutdown if they are in the negative. They can shutdown only if they're not making as much profit as they want.
2PacAn | a day ago
If a company would make more profit shutting down a plant then keeping it open, why would they keep it open?
Do you think rewarding inefficiency is good for society in the long term even if you save some jobs in the short term?
Triangle1619 | a day ago
They’re just sticking to reality in what’s supposed to be an economics sub
Test-User-One | a day ago
Why are you accusing a company that is barely hanging on of cooking the books?
Aside from GRR BUSINESSES ARE BAD, what actual evidence do you have?
While you cannot prove a negative, I'd suggest if they WERE cooking the books, they'd do it so they look GOOD and the stock price goes up so the people doing the cooking are making more money, not less, right?
guy_incognito784 | a day ago
Looking at their profile, they were probably high when they typed that.
guy_incognito784 | a day ago
If they’re cooking the books due to deregulation or whatever other baseless claim you want to assert, you’d think they’d make up better margins.
ammonium_bot | a day ago
> that more then likely
Hi, did you mean to say "more than"?
Explanation: If you didn't mean 'more than' you might have forgotten a comma.
Sorry if I made a mistake! Please let me know if I did. Have a great day!
Statistics
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
butteryspoink | a day ago
Holy shit that margin is rough. I’ve left companies with healthier margins than that due to risks of layoffs.
It sucks for everyone involved but you can’t look at that and think that the future is filled with rainbows and sunshine.
Ataru074 | a day ago
Margins are important but the relation with layoffs isn’t that clear.
In the age of conglomerates with diversified divisions you might have some divisions operating with negative margins and be considered healthy for operational reasons (such as its worth to have control of a certain step at a price in comparison to relying on someone else), or you can have companies with colossal margins and risk layoffs just because the expectation is even larger margins.
The ideal margin for every corporation is zero, because it means you’ll pay zero taxes, not a single dollar goes wasted in taxes, hence maximum efficiency.
Ray192 | a day ago
... if the perfect margins are zero, what's the point of investors putting money into the company?
That's like saying the perfect amount of salary is zero/minimum wage because you don't pay any income taxes!
Ataru074 | a day ago
Because you are investing in the company value. If the company is investing all their revenues (and something) to conquer a position of leadership in the market the value is that now the company controls X% of the entire market.
And your example is dumb as it gets because your salary would be your gross revenues, and that's why, if you can, you max out your 401k, HSA, whatever you can to reduce your taxable income... DOH!
In the same way, if you can, you itemize deductions to minimize your tax burden.
Ray192 | a day ago
> Because you are investing in the company value. If the company is investing all their revenues (and something) to conquer a position of leadership in the market the value is that now the company controls X% of the entire market.
What's the point of investing in the company value if you will never see a cent of profit?
The goal of "conquer a position of leadership in the market" is to then make huge profits from it, and payout the shareholders/investors. What the hell is the point of doing that if you end up making no profit afterwards? Who is going to invest in that?
Amazon spent 20 years making no profit so it can spend the next 20 making gargantuan profits. According to you, they must be stupid to not just keep throwing all their profits down a put so they don't pay taxes on it!
You don't seem to understand that the goal of public for profit companies is to make money for their shareholders and that can only happen if at some point they make some damn profit.
> And your example is dumb as it gets because your salary would be your gross revenues, and that's why,
And investor's earnings from an investment comes entirely from the profits, or selling to someone else who predicts higher future returns/profit than you.
You don't seem to understand the difference between the investor and the company. Yes, the company can spend all of its money paying the employees and never giving a cent back to the investor, But why on earth would the investor agree to that?
> if you can, you max out your 401k, HSA, whatever you can to reduce your taxable income... DOH!
Are you gonna stop making money just to avoid taxes?
No?
Then you realize how stupid the proposition would be for an investor.
> In the same way, if you can, you itemize deductions to minimize your tax burden.
You do realizing reduce tax burdens is not the same thing as actively avoiding making income completely just so you'll never make money.
Ataru074 | a day ago
Ask Amazon. It operated with negative margins for years. Ask Walmart.
Who says you never see a cent of profits? You buy stocks (invest in the company) based on what they are doing and because you believe in the trajectory, not because you are going to see money out of your stocks, unless you sell them realizing that value.
Tell me about how I didn’t realized any profit in a meme stock like Tesla as an investor. Tesla has negative profit margins since the inception up to 2020 and yet investors realized colossal profits in the same period trading stocks.
Company profit margins have very little to do with what you can earn in the stock (investors) market.
Please, educate yourself before blabbering.
shwarma_heaven | a day ago
It couldn't be because they're overpaying their executives, now could it?
A lot of people blame unions for killing the auto industry in Detroit. Japan had unions when they became the world's leading auto manufacturers. The difference is Detroit executives made 300x the average employees. Japan executives made 10x theirs.
Test-User-One | a day ago
Great question!
Since they were doing well 4 years ago, and executive compensation is public information for publicly traded companies, why don't you do the research and get back to us. When was the most recent contract signed? What is the compensation based on in terms of performance? What is the expected income? Then compare that to the prior decade as well as peer organizations.
I look forward to reading it!
shwarma_heaven | a day ago
Thank goodness the work has already been done. There are numerous studies which show, while not a perfectly linear equation, there is certainly correlation between overly large executive to average employee pay gaps... Here is just one
Test-User-One | a day ago
Hmm... That says "US banks"
Got one that says, "Tyson, years 2010-2025?"
Because there's a LITTLE BIT of difference between Chase, Citi, Bank of America and a company that slaughters and packages chickens for a living.
And the primary reason that detroit automakers had issues was that they failed to adapt to a changing market and left the door open to competition.
shwarma_heaven | a day ago
Why would anyone waste their time? You've already made up your mind...
Test-User-One | a day ago
I haven't, at all. Unlike most entities on reddit, I don't come here to stay in a nice warm bubble of confirmation bias - check my post history.
I'm more than willing to learn and admit I'm wrong. Heck, my first post in this thread does exactly that. However, in order to prove me wrong you actually have to do work. Which apparently is something you prefer not to do. "Trust me bro" from a random thing on the internet is not a basis for influence.
MentalCatnip | a day ago
So have you?
Low_Net6472 | a day ago
why are you simping for CEOs?
shwarma_heaven | a day ago
Based on the evidence, yes.
Optimal-Archer3973 | a day ago
The one thing you can tell from this is not a single person there has a functioning brain. Being MAGA means they cannot even help themselves and deserve every bad thing that happens to them. The leopards will be feasting there for months.
[OP] Dont_think_Do | a day ago
One of the biggest things everybody is ignoring is that Tyson COULD sell this fully functional and operating facility with a built in, well trained work force. It won't though because the facility is worth more to the company as a tax write off for the total loss than it is to the company as a write off where they can only take the losses of selling for less than was spent to build the plant.
Even with whatever PILOT program benefits they got so they pay no property taxes at all. Zero.
Selling the property would be easy. Selling it at a price where the buyer can make operating profits would be easy. But why take a cash infusion that will offset income tax losses to the IRS when their accountant isn't going to charge a dime extra to file it as a total loss?
In the end, that is much easier to do than going through the process of selling this plant no matter how easy selling it would be.
Miserable_Middle6175 | a day ago
None of that is in the article.
Test-User-One | a day ago
Who would buy it? Who has expressed interest? Why would they buy it? What is the current status of the meat packing industry in the US?
Given that americans are moving away from eating beef due to high costs of maintaining herds, feed, etc. in a drought, cattle herds are low. How is buying a meat processing plant that will not be profitable because it won't have as much cattle to process a good idea for any business?