The Dems’ nominee for NYC mayor has tapped into discontent free market advocates must address. But his ‘solutions’ would only harm young people — and others.
The Democrats’ nominee for mayor of NYC has tapped into economic discontent free market advocates must address. But his ‘solutions’ would only harm young people -- and others.
I n a small-town brewery smack dab in the middle of Texas, college students and professors routinely come together to talk politics and religion. At one such gathering last year, a young aspiring academic sat before a tipsy crowd and delivered a lecture on Robin Hood.
But this scholar was not there to talk about the classic Disney film. Instead, he proposed resolving American wealth inequality by taking from the rich. Many versions of the tale have the famous outlaw rebelling against excessive taxation. But our confident presenter marshaled him as an argument for more. Much more.
This sort of thinking has a chokehold on young Americans — especially in New York City. Zohran Mamdani, a New York state assemblyman and self-identified Democratic Socialist, shook the political landscape with his unexpected victory during the city’s mayoral primary in late June. Yet knowledge of the economic landscape young Americans face — or think they face — should make his victory less surprising.
They have many concerns. Some are legitimate. Homeownership, so emblematic of the American dream, seems increasingly out of reach for the kinds of voters who flocked to Mamdani. In an overly expensive city, they are just getting by in cobbled-together housing situations and taking out loans to finance DoorDash orders. Mamdani knows this. Running on the promise of affordability, he has presented a salvific vision of city-run grocery stores, rent freezes, and cost-free public transportation — a utopian New York free from economic stress. Mamdani is right to highlight the city’s problems. But he messes up in a serious way by attributing New York’s affordability crisis to the failures of capitalism.
Few politicians wake up in the morning deliberately trying to make the nation worse, though it often looks that way. A charitable reading of Mamdani’s intentions recognizes his good faith effort to resolve New York City’s affordability problem. But good intentions aren’t enough. Unsound policies do not lead to economic stability. Mamdani believes, as so many have throughout history, that he can create his imagined utopia by soaking the rich. Mamdani explained that his plan is to “shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” He has proposed significantly increasing taxes specifically on the top 1 percent of New York residents.
The essence of this proposal is to treat the “wealthy” as some kind of grand untapped resource. This overlooks a couple of things. First, how much they already contribute to the city’s budget. The top 1 percent of New Yorkers already pay more than 40 percent of the city’s income taxes. Second, the known effects of excessive taxation — perhaps not a revolt, but at least a suppression of economic activity. You can see it in examples as mild as other states like California, or in its most extreme forms in socialist and even communist regimes. And third, the mobility of New York’s capital. Mamdani cannot reasonably expect his actions not to provide an incentive for more businesses and people to leave the city and the state for neighboring jurisdictions, and perhaps even more far-flung ones. It was capitalism that built the city’s wealth; an attack on capitalism could take it away. New York has already lost $14 billion in income over the past five years as wealthy residents continue to relocate to Florida. Mamdani’s tax proposal could exacerbate the problem.
Economic reality is, well, real. So why do so many young people blame social problems on capitalism anyway? There are a few possible answers, some of which will come as harsh truths to the aggrieved. One is entitlement. Most young people have heard more established adults say that life is hard. Yet somewhere along the way, the emerging generation began to feel that life was too tough for them. In an age witnessing technological advancement at a faster rate than ever before, the normalization of ease and convenience has become burdensome.
Somehow, many young people seem to think life was easier when transportation took twice as long, when friends could only be contacted by letters and telegrams, and when stores didn’t sell oat milk, simply because commodities were cheaper. Single-family homes in respectable neighborhoods are no longer listed at 30k. That barely covers a semester of private-university tuition. And young people romanticize the past’s affordability. As Mamdani said to his supporters, “Each of us dreams of a New York that is more hopeful and affordable for all. A city where they can do more than just struggle.”
Another sentiment also drives the policy preferences of American youth: misguided compassion. With young people struggling to afford things like housing, groceries, and transportation, it seems that the most compassionate course of action is to provide them with these things at no cost. But this would be immoral, unworkable — and counterproductive.
Take housing policy, for example. New York has served as the nation’s testing ground for federal housing projects. Responding to the city’s 19th century tenements (slums that at the time housed much of the population), city policymakers constructed over 300 government-funded developments. Currently, half a million New Yorkers continue to live in public housing. The average tenant leases for more than 26 years.
Mamdani has proposed to double the city’s budget for building and maintaining federal housing. His idea is not different from those of early reformers whose contributions built the version of New York he now wants to fix. He might ask himself whether more money will fix a problem that more money has created. It is government restrictions, rent-control policies, and other statist obstacles that stand in the way of an increased housing supply. Mamdani’s policies would only increase demand, restrict supply, and therefore do nothing but exacerbate New York’s very real housing crisis. New York is not just facing a housing affordability issue. The city’s problems are rooted in a much bigger housing shortage. Mamdani is proposing the construction of more permanently subsidized federal units while making it harder for private developers to respond to the demand for more housing.
And Mamdani wants to do all of this with other people’s money. Even if he could redistribute wealth as he sees fit, he would eventually run out. Every New Yorker would be all the worse for it. Again, these can be harsh truths. It is not surprising many do not want to hear them. Which is why it is essential that those who want to help the young people now flocking to Mamdani acknowledge their legitimate concerns. It does no good to suggest that their challenges are not real.
In fact, defenders of free markets need to go further than Mamdani. It would never occur to him that pro-market policies are the best way to address New York’s affordability crisis. This means genuinely encouraging private development, unleashing commerce, and cutting red tape. Alternatives that rely on income redistribution systems cannot generate wealth.
Capitalism is not a dirty word. Rather, it is the only way to truly break free from poverty and subsistence living. The emerging generation, quite literally, cannot afford to be fooled, whether by politicized spins on folk heroes or by a charismatic Millennial peddling socialism. Mamdani offers, not a new way forward for the city of New York, but one that has already failed to deliver on its promises.