The point was to just highlight that people don't even think about who they are buying from. The chances of buying from a 55 year old farmer at your grocery store is statistically greater than a 20 year old, making it difficult for 20-year olds to break into the industry.
> Old people must be sacrificed so that the young can have a vibrant economy.
It is not a binary issue. You do not have to stop supporting older people in order to also support the younger people. If you allocate, say, 25% (picked at random) of your food purchases to 20-year olds, you will allow them more room to establish themselves while still leaving room to support the older farmers as well.
It is not just about food. It just seemed like one example that everyone can relate to. It is about spreading the wealth around, instead of everyone buying from a single source. That is, of course, if you care about a vibrant economy for the youth. If you don't, buy from whomever you want.
The assertion that young people are "unwilling to support [their] own peers" is comically absurd. How does the demographic of existing farmers support this? What I can see is that young people don't really want to become farmers, or maybe it's just not a promising field to go into (no pun intended) what with factory farms driving the margins down. Consider the converse, young people spontaneously start demanding food from other young people. They go on a hunger strike until all food is sourced directly from young people. But farming isn't enough, they need everything to come from young people. Old people must be sacrificed so that the young can have a vibrant economy. Forget class warfare or racism, now we have institutionalize ageist segregation where there is an economy for young people and an economy for old people.
How is that a solution to anything, and what would cause people to rally behind such an abstract idea?