From Rent Control to Free Buses: Why Mamdani's "Warmth" Delivers Shortages and Coercion
Zohran Mamdani has been sworn in as mayor, and we knew exactly where he stood. His platform promised free buses, rent control, higher taxes on the rich, and city-run groceries—socialism by definition. So his recent call to “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism” came as no surprise. But how frigid is individualism, really? And how warm is collectivism when you examine the results? Mamdani’s approach will distort pricing, misallocate resources, and replace voluntary exchange with coercion. Take his push for universal childcare. The policy sounds compassionate, but how has it actually played out?
These programs appear as generous social policies—and in some cases socialism—but each is a textbook example of collectivism. Each policy takes away the individual’s choice and interaction with the market in exchange for centralized control. Rent control removes the voluntary exchange between landlords and tenants. Free buses remove user fees in favor of taxpayer funding and government allocation. Universal pre-K takes decisions away from families and places them in the hands of bureaucrats. In every one of these cases, Mamdani’s “warmth” means replacing decentralized market knowledge with a centrally planned government. But the problem is the government doesn’t know how markets work and in fact distorts the signals.
Rent control is not a new experiment in New York. The city has been under some form of rent control or stabilization continuously since the 1940s and is still legally in a housing emergency, with a rental vacancy rate around 1.4 percent—far below the 5 percent threshold the law defines as healthy. It ultimately leads to housing shortages, deteriorating units, and an increase in vacant properties as the cost of upkeep becomes a net negative for landlords. Thomas Sowell notes that under rent control, “there are four times as many abandoned units in New York as there are homeless people,” because owners simply walk away when regulated rents cannot cover upkeep. It’s cheaper to do nothing—anything else puts them out of business. The only way for landlords to operate profitably is to convert properties to condos, which limits rental supply further. Economists across the spectrum—from Paul Krugman to Thomas Sowell—agree that rent control reduces rental supply and worsens shortages. A price ceiling always distorts market signals.
Free buses don’t work either. When Denver tried it in the 1970s, overcrowding forced abandonment of the program within two years. Austin experienced similar results in 1989—vandalism and assaults on drivers increased, and regular riders sought alternatives because it wasn’t safe. New York has its own recent experiment with free buses. Ridership increased, but there was no reduction in car use, and the city lost millions in revenue. Without market signals, you don’t receive the information needed to determine if the service is working. The result is overuse and lost revenue.
Universal pre-K has moral appeal, but the numbers don’t justify the costs. Nationwide, the price tag would run into the hundreds of billions. The randomized control trial of Tennessee’s statewide pre-K program, led by Dale Farran and colleagues at Vanderbilt, found that children offered a slot had lower test scores, more discipline problems, and higher special-education placement by sixth grade than similar children who did not attend. States with universal programs lack adequate funding or quality controls, providing a mediocre product that crowds out private options. What central planning always misses is that it doesn’t allow local knowledge to force change and meet people’s actual needs.
The funding path is always the same: tax the rich. Those revenues are highly volatile and political. When they inevitably fall short, governments cut services or raise taxes elsewhere. All three examples ignore price signals, overlook trade-offs, and make promises they can’t keep. What you get is shortages, decreased quality, and fiscal trouble. Good intentions are noble, but economic reality is our best metric for deciding how we plan—or rather, how we move away from central planning.
There is an alternative in the form of individualism. We constantly turn to socialist policies to solve our problems, but a market-based approach will solve many of the problems we face. Let the builders build. Minneapolis became less strict with zoning rules and let private builders add more housing units, which led to rent growth remaining far below nearby cities. By removing the barriers and controls, the market receives the signal it needs to meet growing demand. Again we see price signals and local knowledge leading the way.
We can achieve childcare without a state monopoly. Several states have targeted subsidies like the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Help is given to low-income families, who buy care from private providers, not the government. The choice belongs to the parents, and the providers must compete for their business. Families get to pick what meets their needs versus a one-size-fits-all model—a key theme as to why individualism isn’t rigid. In fact, it’s quite flexible in this model, whereas the one-size-fits-all model is rigid. The proof is in the approach and results.
Cities like San Diego contract their bus routes to private operators through performance-based deals where fares are charged—no free rides. When San Diego privatized 44 percent of its bus service, the city achieved roughly 33 percent in savings, according to City Journal. A 2020 Empire Center report using Federal Transit Administration data found that competitively contracted bus services in San Diego operated at 30-37 percent lower cost than the public agency. Competitive contracting maintains quality and decreases waste. Operators compete and performance is king—political favor is never a factor.
The pattern across all three: allow individuals to maintain the power of choice, and market and price signals let markets respond to change and innovate. Government has a place to set rules, but it should never micromanage the process. If history is our guide, Mamdani’s quote seems rooted in rhetoric over sound policy. He misses the mark on his adjectives for collectivism and individualism—in fact, he has placed them inversely. The power he wants to establish goes directly to the government to dictate people’s lives and choices. To call that warm is misleading at best. The systems he wants to create are unforgivingly rigid, forcing individuals into perpetual dependence on the government and stripping away the choices they need to thrive in the market and, more importantly, in their own lives. True warmth comes from a government that leaves people with the power of choice and allows them to prosper. Freedom, choice, building, and thriving are warm. Anything that steps on those should be avoided with the utmost rigidity.