This statement of his income, whatever it may be, enables him to compare his prosperity with that of the man who is employed upon a salary. Here, again, however, it is difficult to make comparisons because of the differences in expenses of living. The chief difference, however, in the expense of the wage earner in the city and the farmer is in the matter of house rent. For example, if the wage earner pays $300 a year house rent that must be deducted from his income in comparing it with the labor income of the farmer. It is often stated that the farmer also has his living from the farm. This was much more true formerly than it is at present. Under present methods of distributing food products and with modern types of farming, the amount of food supplied the table from the farm is comparatively small. The rancher in Montana eats foods canned in Maine or Delaware, while the New Hampshire farmer buys his vegetables from Boston commission merchants. The Minnesota farmer cannot supply his breakfast table with oranges, grapefruit or oatmeal. Many of them buy, if not their bread, at least their flour, and also their butter. The fact that the city man indulges in high living is no argument in favor of the country man expecting less wages. Some of those things which are necessary to make the country an ideal place to live are expensive. Some of them are more expensive to obtain in the country than in the city, as, for example, educational facilities. In justifying his purchase of an automobile, a young farmer recently stated that his wife had certain cares, responsibilities and even privations which her city friends did not have. He thought that the automobile would help to offset them. To my mind there is no more ideal place to live and rear a family than in the open country when the conditions are what they should be and may be. I believe, however, it is well to insist that it costs something to live in the country as well as in the city if one lives as well as every farmer has a right to expect to live.