I think before we get bogged down by a flame war it is important to point of a little more bluntly how market forces work.
A business will charge the maximum amount it can get away with, to generate the biggest profit margin.
The maximum amount is (usually) dictated by the demand from the consumer, and their perception of the supply.
Consumers rightly or wrongly assume that there is quite a bit of tea to go around, and so expect to pay a reasonably low price. In order for a business to win that sale, they have to compete in their pricing, and thus the price decreases. For more information see "Competition" in the Oxford English Dictionary, or one of its poorly spelt equivalents across the pond.
Air Traffic Control is more expensive than tea. This is because the qualifications and level of skill required by the labourer in the ATC business are much greater. Thus, whilst there is a healthy supply of willing ATCOs, this is maintained by (arguably - and for another time) good pay and conditions.
If NATS announced that it was merging with PG Tips, and that all operational labourers (i.e. tea farmers and ATCOs) would be paid the same $8 per week or so... NATS would find itself somewhat short staffed.
In general the more highly trained someone is, the more the expect in return for their services. To gain a place at the NATS training college, you need to represent less than 3% of those people who applied. I am assuming here, but I think probably most people would be successful in applying for a tea farming job.
The competition is therefore lower, and the prize less valued.
I hope that has helped you out a little, in understanding why the ATC community has reacted to your statements.
Phil