Jane Ransom wrote:

In article , Kay Easton
writes

By all means argue that we need to protect farmers as a means of
providing food without reliance on imports, or to maintain the landscape
in the form that we have changed it to over the last few hundred years,
but I don't think the argument that anyone should be guaranteed a good
standard of living simply because they are doing the job they have
chosen to do is particularly compelling.

Er . . I think anyone who produces food should have the highest standard
of living. It sickens me that the people who do the least worth while
jobs seem to make the most money (((((((((

So you think farmers should have a higher standard of living than
nurses, doctors or people who collect the dustbins and clear the drains?

And would you differentiate between, say, the small mixed farm tenant
who actually gets his hands dirty and the agribusiness barons with nice
clean green wellies and range rovers who occassionally get as close to
the soil as stopping and asking the combine driver where he going on
holiday?

I think arguments about who should or shouldn't have what standard of
living aren't ultimately very productive - most people are doing a job
which is important to somebody in one way or another (well, apart from
politicians, estate agents, lawyers, anybody with inherited wealth ....
:-))
--
Larry Stoter