> You only have as much capital as the bank will lend you
There are other ways to acquire capital. I see a lot of people who were doctors, lawyers, and tech professionals in the farming business. That is probably not a coincidence.
> And if you are successful, you buy out your less successful neighbor to expand your farm, where does your neighbor go?
The neighbour retires. If you are the neighbour, why would you sell your piece for any less than is required for you to retire? If you plan to keep working, you may as well keep working your farm.
> Old farmers can probably retire, but what about young ones? They often just give up and move.
The young ones generally don't start in the first place unless they have a line on capital that extends beyond the bank. And so, they also have that capital to sell. But why wouldn't they simply keep on farming?
> I see a lot of people who were doctors, lawyers, and tech professionals in the farming business. That is probably not a coincidence.
That is just the Green Acres phenomenon, they are doing it because they have capital from other professions, not because they make a lot in farming.
You have a very strange interpretation of farming in the USA, if you could provide some links/articles that back up your understand, I would take your argument more seriously. I can find a hundred articles on why farming is dying profession, and not any on why it is booming one as you seem to suggest.
I am not entirely familiar with the reference. I have heard of the show, but never seen it. But indeed they are able to start farming because they are more likely to have the capital than someone who is barely making ends meet. Nobody is questioning that it takes capital to start farming.
> You have a very strange interpretation of farming in the USA, if you could provide some links/articles that back up your understand
Well, my understanding is based on being a farmer. I have no idea what I would link to? Anything I have ever read about farming online is so dumbed down that it is basically worthless. It is a lot like when the mainstream media tries to write about tech.
> and not any on why it is booming one as you seem to suggest.
I don't know if it is booming. It can be lucrative. It is certainly not for everyone, but what is?
The Green Acres phenomenon is that a lot of city folk think that if they get the capital, they could go buy some land, equipment, and have a reasonable chance of becoming successful farmers without a long period of education or apprenticeship; It's part of what I call the myth of unskilled labor.
There are other ways to acquire capital. I see a lot of people who were doctors, lawyers, and tech professionals in the farming business. That is probably not a coincidence.
> And if you are successful, you buy out your less successful neighbor to expand your farm, where does your neighbor go?
The neighbour retires. If you are the neighbour, why would you sell your piece for any less than is required for you to retire? If you plan to keep working, you may as well keep working your farm.
> Old farmers can probably retire, but what about young ones? They often just give up and move.
The young ones generally don't start in the first place unless they have a line on capital that extends beyond the bank. And so, they also have that capital to sell. But why wouldn't they simply keep on farming?