That’s a nice rosey way of putting it, but it is never that simple. I’ve been through corporate mergers myself.
Consolidation can take far more jobs that you are willing to admit.
It depends on the specifics. What you think is reasonable is rarely what the corporate board members will.
My most recent brush with the phenominon saw about 80% of the employees of four different concerns lose their jobs by the time consolidation was over. Local middle and upper management was destroyed. Government and corporate regulations and requirements, made simply impossible to meet due to the corporations own directives.
I also saw this concern lose between 25 and 40% of it’s business due to these actions.
The running theory is that corporations are much leaner, more profitable, and much more sound after these mergers.
Well, that’s all PC and wonderful, but it isn’t always the case.
But there’s no reason for anything like that in this case. Look at what we know:
We know inBev doesn’t consider brewing overseas and shipping to America to be economical
We know inBev doesn’t consider their own distribution methods sufficient for the American market
We know these things because inBev already has AB do their brewing and distribution in America. Why would they buy AB and then not only move Stella Artois but Budweiser brewing out of America? Give a logical reason why your scenario would happen, why would a company that could but doesn’t ship their product across the ocean change that when the volume of the product that they’d be shipping multiples a thousand fold? It simply does not make sense. WHY would your scenarios happen? Make it make sense.