As agricultural technology improves, farmers are able to grow more crops with less land and labor. Some of that is due to genetically modified crops (which some rail against), but a lot is due simply to labor-saving devices that allow fewer people to do more work in less time. The bottom line is that we don’t need as many people working as much land to satisfy the needs of the population.

Whenever I see one of those bumper stickers that say “no farms no food,” I shake my head in disbelief. Clearly, those who chant this slogan don’t understand how an economy works. Economies are based on needs and wants; supply and demand. For something like food, demand will always remain fairly constant. We might be able to substitute one food item for another, but we can’t stop eating entirely. In other words: the demand for food is always going to be high, and thus people will go into the business of satisfying that demand with – you guessed it! – food.

If too many farms disappear, the supply of food will decrease below optimal levels to meet demand, and prices will rise. This will entice more people to enter the agricultural sector and produce more food. On the flip side, though, if too many farms are supplying too much food, then prices will fall as farmers compete for market share and some will either go out of business or repurpose their farms to something else, like agritourism.

(Admittedly, if the world actually had zero farms, our food supply would be dangerously low. But the market demand for food wouldn’t let that happen, for the reasons listed above.)

We already spend some $20 billion of taxpayers’ money on subsidies to farmers. This suggests that we have too many farmers, but because we regard it as a great and noble profession, we don’t want to let it die in the United States. It’s kind of like thoroughbred racing, which we support with millions of dollars each year from slots revenue even though it’s a dying sport.

The question is: should we? It’s gotten to the point that some farmers are only allowed to stop farming their land if they can give ample evidence to the state that “profitable farming is not attainable on the farms in question.” Imagine if you had to submit reams of paperwork to the government (and wait 180 days for them to review it) every time you wanted to change jobs!

Some people have silly attachments to things of sentimental value. We might waste some closet space holding on to the toys our children played with when they were young, even though we know they’ll never get used again. Heck, we might even invest in a storage locker if our sentimentality is strong enough. That’s just part of being human.

But when our state is spending our money to force people to continue farming even when there’s little or no demand for their crops, it changes from “part of being human” to a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars at a time when state and county budgets are all-too-often in the red. Not only that, but it’s a misallocation of resources. Imagine the jobs that could be created if those farmers were able to put their assets (land, money, and time) towards a more productive and profitable use.

We shouldn’t let nostalgia get in the way of a healthy budget. And we can’t afford to anymore.