[phkahler]

No it's not. I was going to write one but then decided I'm not qualified to speak for farmers.

I will say this. Both my grandfathers were farmers. One worked his whole life and died broke. The other invested what he could, and never worked the land a day in my life (that I can remember). He once said that he didnt make his money farming, meaning it was from saving and investing. He rented his land, barn, and equipment to others.

IMHO investing is really close to renting (yes, I have some investments). SaaS is rent. Loaning money is rent. We increasingly live in a world where or renters and owners and people who do the most actual work are the least valued. It's still not a rebuttal, just a general observation that things aren't "fair" for some definitions of "fair". This situation is a societal choice and doesnt have to be that way. I'm not sure what a better way looks like though.

[stale2002]

Thats doesn't mean we need more farmers.

Yes, feel free to say that farmers are payed low. But it remains the same that if they are paid this low, then we don't really need more farmers entering the industry.

Instead hopefully less people will join that industry.

[randomdata]

As a farmer myself, I agree that there are too many people in the industry, if you want economic efficiency. Frankly, it provides really great money per hour, making software look poorly paid in comparison, but you quickly run out of work to do because there are so many other farmers trying to do the same. Thus, incomes tend to be low when observed on a yearly basis. I don't know many farmers who wouldn't love to take on more work.

[pcmoney]

It would be wise to ensure that we have some redundancy in the farming sector. Even if it needs go be subsidized. It is arguably a national security concern.