12 comments

  • TulliusCicero32 minutes ago
    &gt; A new pick-up truck that once cost $40,000 now runs to $100,000. A wooden fence post has gone from about $6 to as much as $19. A quarter-mile roll of barbed wire has doubled, from $60 to $130. Everything he uses day to day, he says, has jumped in price since the Covid pandemic.<p>I know why pick-ups have gone up in cost (though I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s quite to 2.5x levels like suggested here since the pandemic), but wooden posts and barbed wire, it&#x27;s less clear why those are so much more expensive now.
    • jermaustin128 minutes ago
      &gt; it&#x27;s less clear why those are so much more expensive now.<p>It&#x27;s basically, because everything else has gotten more expensive. Labor + fuel + wear and tear on equipment + raw materials.<p>Inflation of a single thing, will have effects on anything down stream of that thing.<p>And then there is the &quot;greed&quot; aspect, though overstated, where a company will see that costs have gone up in other sectors, so they raise their accordingly. This has been claimed, but I&#x27;m not sure how much it actually happens.
      • kevin_nisbet13 minutes ago
        &gt;It&#x27;s basically, because everything else has gotten more expensive. Labor + fuel + wear and tear on equipment + raw materials.<p>Don&#x27;t forget taxes (tariffs) have also increased substantially. Even if a supplier isn&#x27;t paying tariff&#x27;s, if their competitors are they can often just raise their prices, or their prices go up due to the supply&#x2F;demand shift.
        • goalieca2 minutes ago
          Inflation from Covid spending is what got us. It was horrible before tarrifs.
      • hn_throwaway_9922 minutes ago
        The &quot;greed&quot; aspect is always bullshit <i>unless</i> there is a specific instance of market failure like monopoly power or collusion. This has definitely happened, so I&#x27;m not discounting it, but in those cases folks should just say the issue is monopoly concentration or collusion.<p>Saying &quot;greed&quot; comes from people who fundamentally believe economics doesn&#x27;t exist, or don&#x27;t understand it. Everyone in the economy is &quot;greedy&quot;. Consumers want to pay the lowest possible prices, and producers want to generate the most profit. Nobody starts a business to be a charity, and businesses will always set their prices to maximize profits.<p>If prices have gone up, the question to ask is why. Is there not enough competition? Have input prices risen? Why are consumers willing to pay more? Saying greed is just a bullshit boogeymanization that politicians like to spout.
        • falsemyrmidon18 minutes ago
          Because markets are neither rational nor perfectly elastic.
          • bryanlarsen1 minute ago
            Which was also true before COVID. So what has changed?
    • dannyw11 minutes ago
      Logistics and labor.<p>People under-estimate the cost of logistics and transport. Every inch of travel for any input, component, or the final product has to be paid; and even a wooden fencepost typically moves between at least 5 different locations before reaching retail.<p>Let&#x27;s use wooden posts as an example:<p><pre><code> 1. Forest. Trees are cut down into logs, and then transported to... 2. Lumbermill. Logs are cut to size, and then transported to... 3. Treatment plant. Without it, your fencepost won&#x27;t last for every long, and then transported to... 4. Distributor location. And then transported to... 5. Store (e.g. Home Depot or whatever). And then you pick it up, or get it delivered to you. </code></pre> Every inch, every mile, you&#x27;re paying for the energy, inefficiencies, and labor involved.
    • yojo23 minutes ago
      At the beginning of the pandemic all the mills cut production anticipating economic collapse that didn’t come. Prices spiked on high demand and low production.<p>Mills did ramp back up, but it’s unclear to me if they used it as a chance to do so slowly&#x2F;preserve margins. Lumber never got close to pre-pandemic levels.<p>Tariffs probably also play a role here. About a quarter of US lumber comes from Canada, and barbed wire is just steel with a little bit of processing.<p>For products with little value add there’s not anywhere for the tax to be absorbed, and no real way for domestic producers to quickly scale up, even if they wanted to.
    • hn_throwaway_9927 minutes ago
      Generalized inflation affects everything. Energy prices have gone up, labor prices have gone up.<p>The people who sell the barbed wire and wooden posts presumably like to be able to eat, so they need to raise their prices to be able to afford groceries, etc.
    • Ekaros10 minutes ago
      I am starting to think that there might be lot less competition on free markets than we think. And many markets tend to be established with big enough players. So they have stopped competing. If new entrants try to come well they might be undercut or simply bought out.
    • ricardonunez23 minutes ago
      I work with contractors and my family own a GC company. After Covid, construction material prices increased a lot due to multiple reasons like supply chain issues, and high demand from the housing boom. Lumber, fencing materials, and steel products were all affected. Although some prices have go down from their peaks, many never returned to pre-2020 levels, so products like fence posts and barbed wire are still expensive.
    • stronglikedan23 minutes ago
      The pick-up thing is definitely true, and is also affecting the used market just as significantly
    • sssilver27 minutes ago
      Because people who sell wooden posts and barbed wire use pickup trucks, among other things that have gone up in price.
    • creaturemachine20 minutes ago
      &gt; but wooden posts and barbed wire<p>Less clear? Check your tariffs.
    • win311fwg13 minutes ago
      <i>&gt; but wooden posts and barbed wire, it&#x27;s less clear why those are so much more expensive now.</i><p>I am seeing way more active paddocks of grazing cattle now as compared to a couple of years ago. The most likely explanation is that higher beef prices compelled more people to try and raise cattle, which resulted in them needing supplies required to raise cattle, and fences are one of those things you need to establish a secure paddock. The increase in demand for fencing supplies, without a corresponding increase in supply, necessities an increase in price.
  • recursivedoubts39 minutes ago
    yeah, it&#x27;s called inflation, it really sucks for everyone except the people who receive the new money early (mainly the banking system, but also people w&#x2F;liquid assets + finance adjacent industries like housing) we should avoid it oh well i guess a bunch of people will go bankrupt and then get bought up at distressed prices by people with access to new money early wait a second...
    • notfromhere35 minutes ago
      Its meat processors having a monopoly.
      • hn_throwaway_9930 minutes ago
        I realize saying RTFA is against the rules, but this exact point (meat processors profiting off the price hikes) is specifically discussed, and refuted, in the article:<p>&gt; Four companies - Tyson, JBS, Cargill and National Beef - control around 85% of American beef processing.<p>&gt; That high level of market concentration has drawn accusations of price-fixing, even from President Trump.<p>&gt; So you might expect that those four firms are currently making huge profits from high beef prices. Yet the opposite is happening.<p>&gt; Tyson, the biggest of the four, reported in May that it had lost more than $500m on beef in the first half of its financial year.
      • ReptileMan33 minutes ago
        monopsony
  • walthamstow24 minutes ago
    The amount of beef eaten per person per year in the USA is absolutely insane anyway:<p>USA - 37kg&#x2F;capita<p>UK - 18kg&#x2F;capita<p>We&#x27;re not exactly shy of roast beef on this island either - the French nicknamed us &quot;rosbifs&quot; for a reason.
    • Schlagbohrer22 minutes ago
      According to the Economist magazine, the global problem is Chinese people eating more meat.
      • walthamstow16 minutes ago
        That&#x27;s a deeply biased stance though, isn&#x27;t it? It seems to say that USA and Brazil eating vast amounts of beef, the latter clearing the Amazon to do so, isn&#x27;t a problem, it&#x27;s only a problem now because of the Chinese.
      • gruez15 minutes ago
        Shouldn&#x27;t per-capita consumption be factored in? Otherwise &quot;the global problem&quot; just boils down to whichever country is the &quot;biggest&quot; (by population or by GDP).
    • numbers_guy21 minutes ago
      I don&#x27;t remember when I first found out, but it blew my mind that sausages in the US are typically beef. Like, what? Sausages are like quintessentially pork products. Like the whole point is that you have a lot of off cuts of a cheap meat and you make sausages. Beef sausages? Yeah, that&#x27;s like a step change in wealth, haha.
    • ihsw20 minutes ago
      [dead]
  • markstos30 minutes ago
    Animal agriculture is a key driver of climate change: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sentientmedia.org&#x2F;how-does-livestock-affect-climate-change&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sentientmedia.org&#x2F;how-does-livestock-affect-climate-...</a><p>Along with the high price, that&#x27;s one more reason to not buy it.
    • onlyrealcuzzo25 minutes ago
      Beef is particularly egregious.<p>Poultry and even pork are about an order of magnitude more efficient.<p>It&#x27;s interesting how long the market was wildly subsidized to hide the true cost of beef.
    • allcentury24 minutes ago
      There’s research now that high density rotational grazing does the opposite.
    • vitaflo20 minutes ago
      A person eating one single hamburger uses more water than an entire year of LLM use for the same person. Yet we are very concerned about water use in data centers, but nobody cares about McDonalds.
    • numbers_guy23 minutes ago
      All economic activity is a key driver to climate change. Why single out one thing? You&#x27;re clearly imposing a self-serving moral judgement on other people.
      • shlant13 minutes ago
        &gt; All economic activity is a key driver to climate change<p>what a pointless thought-terminating cliché<p>&gt; You&#x27;re clearly imposing a self-serving moral judgement on other people.<p>Just because you are the wrong side of morality does not mean they are incorrect
    • Noaidi28 minutes ago
      Some of need to eat animal foods to live because genetics. I am of Sami heritage and I am tired of people telling me my genetics are the problem.
      • shlant17 minutes ago
        your infinitesimally rare edge case is not a negation of the comment you are responding to. Also I don&#x27;t think there is even any good evidence that some people have genetic heritage that means they can only eat animal foods
      • markstos18 minutes ago
        Where I can learn more about the genetic need of people of Sámi heritage to eat animal food?<p>When I tried to search for the details, I found only that it was a traditionally meat heavy diet.
  • JohnFen34 minutes ago
    Beef prices have become simply insane. The value I get from beef can no longer justify the expense, so I&#x27;ve simply stopped buying it at all. I&#x27;ve largely replaced it with pork. Pork used to be the most popular meat in the US. I wonder if it will be again.
    • Schlagbohrer2 minutes ago
      Maybe americans will start eating Philippino pag-pag? (recycled meat from landfills)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;c7gDBVmgIRA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;c7gDBVmgIRA</a>
    • Jach11 minutes ago
      Even discount beef has worse discounts. My grocery store changed out the 50% discount stickers for meat at its sell-by date to 30%.
    • recursivedoubts32 minutes ago
      The neat part is that there is no inflation here: you just substituted a worse product for a better one and our friends in the govt call it good.
      • gruez8 minutes ago
        &gt;you just substituted a worse product for a better one and our friends in the govt call it good.<p>I agree that somewhat distorts the effect of inflation, but at the same time it has to be done for inflation measures to make any sense. Otherwise we&#x27;d still be measuring the prices of heating coal and whale blubber.
      • JohnFen30 minutes ago
        I very much disagree that it&#x27;s a worse product.
        • svachalek26 minutes ago
          Why were you buying beef before, then? Hasn&#x27;t pork always been cheaper than beef?
          • JohnFen18 minutes ago
            Historically, I&#x27;ve always bought both. It&#x27;s nice to have variety. The difference now is that I&#x27;m not buying both.
          • stronglikedan22 minutes ago
            because variety is the spice of life
        • recursivedoubts27 minutes ago
          why weren&#x27;t you always eating pork then? (I like both, prefer beef usually but buy pork often, dislike how hogs are treated tho compared to cows)
          • stronglikedan22 minutes ago
            &gt; why weren&#x27;t you always eating pork then?<p>That&#x27;s not what they said.
        • Noaidi25 minutes ago
          I knew a man who worked in the food industry for forty years. He told me to never eat U.S. pork the way it is processed today.
          • stronglikedan21 minutes ago
            Anyone that truly knows how the sausage is made, so to speak, will tell you that in any country. Meat processing isn&#x27;t pretty in any form.
        • jLaForest15 minutes ago
          i mean that cant be true if you also admit to only buying it because your preferred product became too expensive.
      • thijson27 minutes ago
        I think Greenspan called it hedonics.
    • iamnothere23 minutes ago
      Probably, along with “meat fillers” and blends&#x2F;grinds. And lots of ramen, which seems to have replaced old Depression-era standbys like hot dog casseroles and Campbell’s soup.
    • aleksandrm23 minutes ago
      Same here, I haven&#x27;t had beef in over 2 years now. Chicken and pork only now, mostly chicken, like 90% chicken is all I eat now. Insane.
  • quacked37 minutes ago
    My father-in-law grew up on a small-time farm and then went into environmental engineering as a professor, and briefly worked on the Secretary of Agriculture&#x27;s staff in the Biden administration. He has told me that there are 3-5 (can&#x27;t remember the number) colossal meatpacking corporations in the US that have laid waste to smaller-time competition, and now that the market is captured their owners and shareholders can skim basically whatever they want out of the enterprise. He also was advocating to have policy written that would stop chronic underpayment of slaughterhouse and meatpacking workers at these colossal firms and was told it was politically inviable.<p>Unrelated to this, but I have Alpha-Gal Syndrome, the anaphylactic allergy to red meat, which is spreading rapidly as the ticks colonize every square inch of nature in the US. In Arkansas 20% of people tested on a big free testing day were sensitized to the galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose molecule (AGS is sensitization + symptoms, not just sensitization.)<p>I think that things are going to get weird with beef in the US in the next few decades.
    • pingou35 minutes ago
      From the article:<p>&quot;Four companies - Tyson, JBS, Cargill and National Beef - control around 85% of American beef processing.<p>That high level of market concentration has drawn accusations of price-fixing, even from President Trump.<p>So you might expect that those four firms are currently making huge profits from high beef prices. Yet the opposite is happening.<p>Tyson, the biggest of the four, reported in May that it had lost more than $500m on beef in the first half of its financial year.&quot;
    • manyatoms27 minutes ago
      &gt; In Arkansas 20% of people tested on a big free testing day were sensitized to the galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose molecule<p>What effect does this have on the person?
      • gruez2 minutes ago
        I wouldn&#x27;t take the 20% figure at face value. If you only test for antibody reaction, you get an implausibly high number.<p>&gt;A study of blood samples from military recruits, taken between 2001 and 2007, found that nearly half the recruits from south-central Missouri, where Ellison lives, had allergy antibodies for alpha-gal. [...]<p>&gt;Only a fraction of people with antibodies to alpha-gal become allergic to it, and those who are often don’t realize it. Some react only to red meat. Some also react to milk, cheese, and other animal products that have alpha-gal. The symptoms are so delayed that people often blame them on food poisoning, irritable-bowel syndrome, gluten intolerance. In the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as many as half a million people have alpha-gal syndrome, but other researchers suspect that the number is higher.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;2026&#x2F;07&#x2F;06&#x2F;the-tick-that-hunts-down-its-hosts-including-us" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;2026&#x2F;07&#x2F;06&#x2F;the-tick-that-...</a>
    • richwater35 minutes ago
      The article specifically talks about how some of those huge meatpacking companies are losing money on cattle. I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s them to blame in totality here.
  • dastbe31 minutes ago
    you can increase profits through volume or margin.<p>right now we are in a whole economy experiment to see how long you can increase margin through price increases and shrinkflation.
  • bz_bz_bz47 minutes ago
    Save you a click:<p>&quot;The rancher is selling calves for record sums, but is not better off because he has higher costs. The feedlot company is selling for all-time high prices, but it also has to pay them in the first place. The packers are losing money because there is a limit to what they can charge. Restaurants and supermarkets also can only increase prices by so much.&quot;
    • ericmay37 minutes ago
      Many people see this as a problem, but I see it as a normal function of market economies. Disruptions, changes in government policy, changes in consumer behavior, and more will over the long term just work themselves out. Of course some policies or seemingly &quot;voluntary&quot; policies may cause undue price increases, but even those work themselves out.<p>At the end of the day as more and more people want to consume the same products the prices for those are going to just go up.<p>When I see folks really hammering on price increases for products like beef or gas I can&#x27;t help but think of how absolutely screwed we are in terms of addressing climate change if it involves consumer behavior.
      • cousinbryce23 minutes ago
        Beef and gas prices are up due to policy (tariffs, war) If anything, it shows how effective government policy can be. Ironically higher beef and gas prices are quite good for reducing carbon emissions.
        • ericmay9 minutes ago
          Well they are up at least in part due to policy such as tariffs and war which unfortunately is imposed upon us in the US (Russia invading Ukraine, Iran destabilizing the Middle East), but I also think an important factor is the increase in global demand for beef and other meat products.<p>Gas prices are a little less clear as it seems primarily the increases have been due to Iranian destabilization in the Middle East and less so tariffs, but gas prices do effect each country differently so increases here in the US are a lot less painful than, say, Singapore.<p>I agree with you that increases in the prices of both are good for reducing carbon emissions. I think it&#x27;s interesting to see how folks are reacting to, what in my mind seem to be still incredibly low prices relative to the negative externalities. If we factored in the destruction and harm we&#x27;re doing to the planet gas in the US should probably be more in the neighborhood of $20&#x2F;gallon or something (that&#x27;s a made up number and I&#x27;m just guessing) and beef probably should be quite a bit more expensive too. Though I think it&#x27;s also worth pointing out gas prices are still lower than when Russia unjustly invaded Ukraine and if we can stomach those we can stomach these too.
      • notfromhere34 minutes ago
        A lot of these markets aren&#x27;t really functioning when there are many middlemen that have an 2-4 company oligopoly that choke out any actual competition.<p>Many markets don&#x27;t really have &#x27;competition&#x27;
        • ericmay32 minutes ago
          No, markets still function anyway over the long term (monopolies go bankrupt and are disrupted all the time) and if you are worried about oligopoly you want to ensure that communism and state ownership of the means of production is stamped out to prevent monopolies.
          • valicord29 minutes ago
            Ah, yes, clearly communism is the reason for high inflation in the US...
            • ericmay27 minutes ago
              That wasn&#x27;t what I wrote or communicated.
              • valicord17 minutes ago
                The comment you were replying to said that the reason for high prices is oligopoly and you&#x27;ve replied that the way to prevent oligopoly is to be against communism, so logically it follows that fighting communism would help lower the prices, no?
                • ericmay14 minutes ago
                  Well, I guess if the OP was under the mistaken belief that the only reason for high prices was because of an oligopoly, then sure. But that premise is incorrect and it would be a bit bizarre to suggest that given at a minimum we could look to American tariffs or something never mind the pandemic helicopter money that was dispersed.<p>But if you want to follow that train of thought with that faulty premise, then sure yes we must stop communism to lower prices because the OP says that oligopoly is solely responsible for price increases, so it follows that further restriction on market participants further increases prices. I don&#x27;t agree with that premise, but if that&#x27;s your view and the OPs view then it would be logically consistent for you to also advocate stamping out communism to lower prices.
              • Dylan1680712 minutes ago
                So it was just a non-sequitur? Nobody was suggesting communism.<p>(Also communism doesn&#x27;t follow the same rules as monopolies.)
                • ericmay7 minutes ago
                  No it wasn&#x27;t a non-sequitur. Instead of repeating myself I&#x27;ll just link to this good explanation: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49197575">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49197575</a>
      • JohnFen31 minutes ago
        &gt; Many people see this as a problem, but I see it as a normal function of market economies.<p>Both things can be true.
      • esafak32 minutes ago
        Things might not work itself out in desirable ways. I imagine what will happen is that portions will shrink, and become adulterated. For example, a restaurant ostensibly using ground beef might partially substitute something cheaper... Food fraud is rampant in developing countries. One example:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.foodnavigator.com&#x2F;Article&#x2F;2025&#x2F;07&#x2F;28&#x2F;food-fraud-in-turkey-reveals-critical-risks&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.foodnavigator.com&#x2F;Article&#x2F;2025&#x2F;07&#x2F;28&#x2F;food-fraud-...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1002&#x2F;jsfa.14302" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1002&#x2F;jsfa...</a>
        • ericmay28 minutes ago
          Well if you care about portion size or the introduction of substitutes then you can change your buying habits. We only eat out for dinner at great restaurants because I can cook better food at home in a lot of cases.<p>You&#x27;re going to have to change those habits anyway because even without inflation that has been ongoing since the pandemic began you still have a lot of pressure to push prices higher on beef and other &quot;luxury&quot; goods as global demand continues to increase, the environment becomes worse off and requires further regulation, &amp;c. It&#x27;s perhaps a head start, but the long term trend isn&#x27;t toward lower prices regardless of the impact of inflation (for example).
  • ReptileMan33 minutes ago
    There should be laws ensuring that every market there should be at least 5-6 players and is free or is declared natural monopoly&#x2F;monopsony and regulated.<p>The in between you have all the bad from monopolies in the forms of cartels.
  • Noaidi29 minutes ago
    Welcome to the Polycrisis. Climate change, economic collapse, etc...<p>Just wait till El Nino hits this year.
  • pamircake17 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • pamircake33 minutes ago
    [dead]