Oink! Another Supply Chain Disruption

A cruel dilemma: pigs’ rights versus cost of living, pigs’ rights versus cost of living. How can mere mortal man choose?

by James A. Bacon

Virginia-based Smithfield Foods has announced its intention to close its Vernon, Calif., meat-packing plant, which employs 1,800 people and pays $21 per hour on average. The company cited “high costs and over-regulation” for the decision. The costs of doing business in California “are significantly higher than other states where we operate,” said Jim Monroe, Smithfield vice president for corporate affairs.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the cost of utilities is 3.5 times higher per head to produce pork compared to the 45 other U.S. states where Smithfield operates. Smithfield also cited California law that requires farmers to give hens, sows, and veal calves more living space. Meanwhile, pig farmers are cutting back as the cost of feed, farm labor and material increases.

The Smithfield news follows close on the heels of the announcement that inflation reached 8.6% over the past 12 months. The Smithfield decision won’t help matters. Shrinking meat-packing capacity will add to upward pressure on bacon, pork and sausage prices and, thus, the overall price of groceries.

The price of goods and services is set by supply and demand. Demand has been inflated by massive federal deficit spending and the decision of the Federal Reserve Bank to monetize that debt, pumping up the money supply and putting more money into the hands of investors and consumers. That is the primary cause of the spike in inflation. But regulatory policies restricting the supply side contribute as well.

For example, the Biden administration has done everything within the power of the executive to restrict the supply of fossil fuel production and transportation. The consequences of those actions arguably have yet to be felt, but they will constrain oil and gas production in the future. Likewise, Smithfield’s decision will have minimal impact on the price of pork products today, but it will suppress the supply, and hence increase the price, in the future.

One can argue that shutting down the fossil fuel industry will save the planet. Likewise, one can argue that mandating better conditions for pigs, hens and calves is the moral thing to do. But regulatory actions have consequences. And when most government mandates have the effect of restricting rather than boosting supply, you can be sure that inflation will not be a “transitory” phenomenon.

The median family income in Virginia is about $74,000 a year. The loss of purchasing power from 8.6% inflation is equivalent to $6,400. That silent tax is the consequence of monetizing the trillion-dollar deficits and saddling the private sector with hundreds of billions of dollars in regulatory costs.

Bear that in mind the next time you shovel a piece of yummy, delicious, nutritious bacon into your mouth — assuming you can afford to buy it anymore.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

38 responses to “Oink! Another Supply Chain Disruption”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods?

  2. Randy Huffman Avatar
    Randy Huffman

    Good posting, clear example of how many Government officials have no clue about how to run a business and what is needed for a business to not only survive, but to flourish for not only the the owners, but employees.

  3. Don’t you love ‘globalization’! It’s done such great things for our once prosperous country.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      globalization has been around since the time we shipped Tobacco to England… and slaves to Virginia, nothing new here…

      1. CrazyJD Avatar

        Oh please, Larry. Is that really a serious argument. I think its called the logical thinking error known as “Shifting definition” Pretty obviously, KLS uses globalization in its current definition. You shift the definition to its meaning 300 years ago. Nice try

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Hey Crazy…

          No. I said Globalization has been a “thing” for a long time… not a new thing…

          I don’t see a different definition unless you can enlighten me with one and compare.

          Have at it.

          1. CrazyJD Avatar

            I’m not sure Larry is totally wrong, just wrong,…and it’s poor thinking to equate trade then with trade now–the shifting definition to make an invalid point When you are shipping overseas, even to England, of which we were part, that only starts to look like globalization in the sense that you are shipping things overseas. I agree it’s better not to call trade with England globalization. The shifting definition happens when many countries are engaging in trade all over the world, not just us and England, which in no sense is the kind of globalization normally thought of today. That’s the shifting definition to attempt a point that “it doesn’t matter, it’s been around for long time”

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            not sure I see your distinction.. were you waffling?

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yes. Noah shipped animals.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The distinction lies with the subjects of the trading. Inanimate goods are not animals although some goods are animal products.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, trade in 1850 was similar to today. Ships plied the seas loaded with goodies from China and to China loaded with opium. Today, it’s fentanyl from China. Payback’s a bear.

        2. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          We were part of England 300 years ago.

          1. CrazyJD Avatar

            Yes we were. And your point would be?

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            It isn’t globalization when you ship within your own country. Larry, as usual, was wrong.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Ya think we ONLY shipped to England and vice versa…

            Hey DJ – have you ever heard of a phrase called ‘the spice trade”?

            was that “globalization”?

            come on guy… don’t be a numbskull..

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Can one just stop? Is numbskullery simply an addiction?

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Can one just stop? Is numbskullery simply an addiction?

          6. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Here was your exact quote …

            “globalization has been around since the time we shipped Tobacco to England”

            Not a very good example of the long arc of globalization.

            Beyond that, if you don’t think global trade has been hugely increasing in the last 50 years you are not paying attention.

          7. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            MARCO! …
            Polo.

            I wasn’t aware that we didn’t trade with the Dutch… weren’t they the primary source of slaves, one of Larry’s cited commodities? Even if you discount the 1700s, by 1800 we were building something called the American Clipper, and the Transcontinental Railroad by 1870 made us THE trade route Europe to Asia.

            Panama and Suez Canals anyone?

            FYI, TJ hisself smuggled rice from Italy. Isn’t smuggling a sign of global trade?

            No wonder public education is failing. It began crumpling in, … when were you born?

            https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/90392.htm

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Here Larry. All you need to support your very correct position on colonial trade and multinational companies…
        https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-history-review/article/abs/dutch-multinational-enterprises-in-the-united-states-a-historical-summary/63BA959CFCC7BFFED579C37E31C0E29E

        I’m sure BR has access through JSTOR, or other journalistic access ability. The abstract alone supports your assumption.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I swear, it’s like folks were taking a dump during history class that talked about trade:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5e60296997c23639f20211d0691945568d7ce4942b77b6157037aa4d1b061599.jpg The whole thing is just silly in some respects.

          And for decades and longer , Conservatives have quite traditionally been strong proponents of globalization until this fool Trump comes along and essentially argues for isolation and “America First” and other ignorant policies.

          Here’s the Tax Foundation:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d5de4bbf520dd3e52e99eff1a1ce950f81e45986d68913a7c2e4f39d9c5df3fc.jpg

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            International trade began when a Phoenician storm tossed boat landed in Greece, trading bronze weapons for food.

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            So, your contention is that the level of global trade has not increased (as a percentage of global GDP) in 300 years?

            Seriously?

            How many BMWs did you see on American streets in the 1960s?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      By “great things”, you mean when we shipped gold and silver out of China and shipped opium in?

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Smithfield also cited California law that requires farmers to give hens, sows, and veal calves more living space.”

    You know if they can’t be bothered to treat the animals they will be slaughtering with compassion, they really do need to be put out of business. Way to go, California!! Bravo!!

    1. CrazyJD Avatar

      In some sense, Eric, I have to agree with you. I would argue that animals have souls. God put us in charge of the animals in Genesis. I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean we could mistreat them. Of course, we don’t know from this conversation the extent of the regulations, which, knowing California, is probably way beyond what we would consider justified.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Is any humane treatment unjustified for an animal on which you would bestow a soul?

        1. CrazyJD Avatar

          That of course leaves the question that no one is addressing here on Jim’s blog. What sort of regulations? Would you say that crate training your dog is inhumane? They’re locked in a cage. I suppose, as with most things, it depends on how it is described. With the exception of Dick Sizemore, most of you guys on the left just don’t want to deal with the details of an issue. Opinions are like assholes–everyone’s got one.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The base issue begins with ownership; then treatment of animals arises. The beagle mill in VA is an example of ownership gone extreme. Are animals subject to ownership or are humans the stewards of them?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I would treat them as well as you.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Beginning in 2022, Proposition 12 was set to ban the confinement of:[1]

        breeding pigs and their immediate offspring in areas with less than 24 square feet of usable floor space per pig”

        That would be a 6×4 pen for each breeding sow.

        1. CrazyJD Avatar

          generally speaking, I’m opposed to Propositions that have high emotional content, but may or may not have any science behind them. I’m not against treating pigs, who are among the smartest of barnyard animals, humanely. I think I may be opposed to letting an electorate decide the question either way because I they use the right criteria for deciding what amounts to a scientific question. If I like cheap pork, do I vote against the Proposition? If I’m sympathetic with the poor dears, do I vote for it? I get back to my question whether crating my dog is inhumane. This is why we have a republic; we vote for people who are presumably smart, can gather all the information and come up with some sort of solution that makes sense.

  5. Bubba1855 Avatar
    Bubba1855

    Let them eat cake…

  6. WayneS Avatar

    This little piggy is not going to market…

    1. Bubba1855 Avatar
      Bubba1855

      yes he is…they’ll probably ship him to Iowa. I wonder what the price of pork will go up to in CA? Hispanics are the largest consumers of pork in CA…

  7. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Even fat back and streak of lean are outrageously priced.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The other end of this supply chain…
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QhC-ctaqM0Y

Leave a Reply