Zohran Mamdani: The Rising Star with Destructive Policies
His Policies will be Another Example as to why Socialism eternally Fails
If there is one thing Democrats have been very good at, it is creating a massive political excitement during election seasons. Back in 2016, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders created a phenomenal political sensation with a set of policies that would create paradise on earth–Medicare-For-All, raising the minimum wage, taxing the super-rich in order to equally redistribute wealth…etc. These policies, founded on equality and social justice, had attracted many voters to sympathize with Senator Sanders’ socialist policies. In 2018, the same political fervor was replicated with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), who basically ran on the same platform as Sanders, and got elected U.S. Representative at age 29. Today, AOC has become a stronghold in the Democratic Party. As a matter of fact, she now represents the progressive and socialist ideology of the party and is currently widely tipped to run for president in 2028. In 2025, the Democratic Party found a new rising star who, like Bernie Sanders and AOC, runs for the New York City mayoral office on the same socialist platform. His name? Zhoran Mamdani.
Who is Zhoran Mamdani? A New York State Assemblymember originally from Uganda and of Indian descent, Mamdani gained political prominence and national attention after defeating Former New York State Governor, Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primaries, which took place on June 24, 2025. The reason Mamdani had become a political sensation is that he is fairly young–thirty-three years old, and he was born in Kampala, Uganda, which highlights that America is truly the land of opportunity, as anyone could come here and make it, and Mamdani’s political success reflects the American spirit. As he became the presumptive Democratic nominee for the mayoral race, he is set to face incumbent candidate Eric Adams, a Democrat-turned-Independent, who has been under fire for various accusations of corruption. Although Mamdani’s political career is undeniably impressive, to say the least, it is essential to assess the potential outcomes of his policies if he were to become the next Mayor of New York City.
What is Mamdani’s program? Mamdani has proposed a series of progressive policies aimed at addressing New York’s affordability and improving the quality of life for working-class New Yorkers. The list of policies is fairly long but I am going to focus on the core ones, which are: (1) expansion of public housing, (2) free buses, (3) universal childcare, (4) increasing the minimum wage, (5) increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
1) Expansion of Public Housing
On the surface, promoting the expansion of public housing seems like a good, moral, and noble idea. Even politicians like Bernie Sanders went on to say that “housing is a right.” The problem with the expansion of public housing is that it is going to accentuate market distortion. When public housing is expanded through government power, it undermines market forces and increases the cost of housing, especially for those it was intended to help. Let me explain further. Subsidized public housing lowers costs for residents, which can increase demand for nearby private housing, driving up rents and home prices. A 2021 National Bureau of Economic Research study found that Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects often raised property values in surrounding areas, making them less affordable for unsubsidized residents.
On paper, expanding subsidized public housing seems appealing because it will attract residents to specific areas. The issue is that this attractiveness will only create an uneven demand that does not align with market signals. I am not sure if Mamdani is economically illiterate or simply decided to deliberately ignore the previous failures of that policy; this artificial demand will only lead to an over-concentration of low-income households, thus straining local resources and infrastructure.
One crucial problem that Mamdani ignores about the effect of this policy is that it creates a supply disruption in the New York housing market. That’s because government-funded housing crowds out private development. Indeed, developers may avoid areas with public housing due to perceived risks or reduced profit margins, especially if zoning or subsidies favor public projects. This reduces overall housing supply, as seen in some urban markets like San Francisco, where private construction lagged despite high demand. Mamdani certainly did not learn from the San Francisco experiment, and he is about to repeat the same destructive policy that already failed in other parts of the United States.
2) Free Buses
Like the first policy analyzed, this policy also seems great on the surface. Who would not want free bus rides? We all do, but there is a consequence to such a “generous” policy. First and foremost, the overuse and congestion of these buses. Free buses lower the cost of ridership to zero, encouraging excessive use, including for non-essential trips. This can lead to overcrowded buses, longer wait times, and reduced service quality. A 2018 study of Luxembourg’s free transit experiment found increased ridership but strained capacity, reducing efficiency for commuters who relied on timely service. Mamdani could take a look at that study and reconsider his position on this issue.
A more important issue this policy raises is the fact that revenue will be significantly reduced. Fare-free systems eliminate a key revenue stream for transit agencies, often leading to budget shortfalls. For example, back in 2020, Kansas City launched the zero-fare bus program, which required ongoing subsidies from general tax revenue. This eventually strained municipal budgets and limited reinvestment in transit improvements. This is another case that Mamdani deliberately or subconsciously ignored before making such a proposal.
3) Universal Childcare
Universal childcare, while aimed at increasing access and supporting families, undeniably leads to suboptimal outcomes that Zohran Mamdani ignores.
First, despite the good intentions of this policy, it leads to higher costs and a misallocation of resources. Implementing universal childcare requires substantial government spending on infrastructure, staff, and administration. For example, a 2021 estimate from the Center for American Progress pegged the cost of universal childcare in the U.S. at $100 billion annually. This can strain public budgets, diverting funds from other priorities like education or infrastructure.
Moreover, a universal childcare policy triggers market distortions. Subsidized childcare suppresses private providers by undercutting prices, reducing competition, and innovation. For example, in Quebec, where universal childcare was introduced in the 1990s, studies (e.g., Baker et al., 2019) showed private providers struggled, leading to less diversity in care options and potential quality declines in some areas. And the goal of Mamdani is to expand diversity through such a program.
Lastly, while universal childcare aims to boost workforce participation, particularly for women, the evidence is mixed. A 2020 study in the Journal of Political Economy found Quebec’s program increased maternal employment but had limited long-term economic gains due to high costs and modest productivity impacts. Additionally, low-wage childcare workers may face stagnant wages in a subsidized system, discouraging skilled labor from entering the field.
4) Increasing the Minimum Wage
This policy proposal is the most absurd and nonsensical of all, and Mamdani clearly did not learn from past mistakes regarding raising the minimum wage. Bernie Sanders is the man who instigated the concept of “making the minimum wage a living wage.” Many people, including Zohran Mamdani, support this because it sounds morally right and fair. In fact, Mamdani even proposed to raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour, on the premise that doing so would make it a living wage. My question to Mamdani is, then, why not raise the minimum wage to $300 an hour instead of $30 an hour? The real problem with raising the minimum wage is that the economics of this proposal do not hold up.
Indeed, a minimum wage, even when increased, often fails to be a living wage due to several factors, including its inability to keep up with inflation and the rising cost of living. Additionally, minimum wage laws do not account for the varying costs of living across different locations and do not provide enough income for a family to meet basic needs.
Increasing the minimum wage is notoriously famous for leading to job losses. As a matter of fact, Mamdani failed to learn his economics lessons as he failed to understand that higher minimum wages increase labor costs, prompting employers, especially in low-margin industries like retail or food service, to cut jobs or hours to manage expenses. A 2019 CBO report estimated that a $15 federal minimum wage could reduce employment by 1.3 million jobs, though estimates vary by context.
Beyond the fact that it leads to job losses, what Mamdani ignores about raising the minimum wage is that it is going to make New York City more expensive than it already is. Businesses often pass higher labor costs to consumers, raising prices for goods and services. A 2021 UC Riverside study found that a 10% minimum wage hike led to a 0.4% increase in restaurant prices, disproportionately affecting low-income consumers who rely on affordable goods.
Lastly, increasing the minimum wage will incentivize small businesses to reduce their hiring. When the minimum wage is increased, small businesses and startups may hesitate to hire new workers, especially entry-level or less-skilled employees, if wages are artificially high. This can stifle job creation, as seen in Seattle’s 2014-2017 minimum wage increases, where a University of Washington study reported reduced hiring in low-wage sectors.
5) Increasing taxes on the Wealthy and Corporations
Increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations has been a policy proposed by socialists for decades, as a means to redistribute wealth equally and equitably. Increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations, however, never actually redistribute wealth equitably. In fact, it disincentivizes those who have the ability to create wealth to do so.
Mamdani needs to understand that higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations reduce disposable income and profits available for investment. This can lower capital formation, which is critical for economic growth. For example, a 2020 study by the Tax Foundation estimated that a 10% increase in corporate tax rates could reduce long-term GDP by 0.2-0.3% due to decreased investment in equipment and innovation.
The more wealthy people and corporations are taxed, the more it incentivizes them to commit tax evasion. Wealthy individuals and corporations often have the resources to exploit tax loopholes, move assets offshore, or relocate operations to lower-tax jurisdictions. The OECD reported in 2019 that high corporate tax rates correlate with increased profit shifting to tax havens, reducing domestic tax revenue, and distorting global markets. Let us not forget that New York City is the financial capital of the world. If Mamdani increases taxes on those who produce wealth, they will move their assets offshore, which would drain New York of new financial opportunities.
And lastly, higher taxes on high earners can discourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship. The wealthy often fund startups or small businesses, and increased taxes may reduce their willingness to invest in high-risk, high-reward ventures. A 2018 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that higher personal income taxes slightly reduced patent filings, a proxy for innovation.
Conclusion
Mamdani does clearly have an extreme agenda for New York City. This agenda is made of destructive policies that will only drain New York City instead of improving it, especially the lives of working-class New Yorkers. What the working-class needs is more economic opportunities, and economic opportunities are not created through more legislation seeking to expand government power but through permissive laws that facilitate access to economic resources. Zohran Mamdani’s rise to prominence as a future political success is a distraction, a diversion from what really matters: his policies, and the policies he is about to implement if elected, are terrifying and will leave NYC in a much worse place than it already is under Eric Adams.