

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The rise of cost-of-living focused candidates like Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, and Katie Wilson suggests that the electoral engagement of those who live on wages and salaries is rising.
Recent electoral dynamics suggest an affordability crisis is mobilizing a newly engaged electorate. Cost-of-living conditions are a measure of class relations: “According to a Statista Consumer Insights survey conducted in June and July 2025, 49% of US adults said that the high cost of living was one of the biggest challenges they currently face—making it by far the most common answer.”
The billionaire corporations and the wealthy, attached to the political system, are benefiting. “The total wealth of the top 10%—or those with a net worth of more than $2 million—reached a record $113 trillion in the second quarter, up from $108 trillion in the first quarter,” CNBC’s Robert Frank writes, citing Federal Reserve Bank data. “The increase follows three years of continued growth for those at the top, with the top 10% adding over $40 trillion to their wealth since 2020.”
A driver of the wealth boom at the top is the stock market. The prices of so-called Magnificent Seven stocks of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, Meta, Microsoft and Tesla, are booming.
Meanwhile, a cost-of-living crisis festers on Main Street. Significantly, this working majority does not set prices or wages, the drivers of cost-of-living conditions.
NYC’s response to systemic unaffordable childcare, food, and rent is, therefore, a conscious decision of the working class on behalf of its own self-interest, electorally speaking.
It’s not an either or situation. “The roots of today’s affordability crisis actually lie not in recent price spikes,” according to Heidi Shierholz, president at the Economic Policy Institute and former chief economist at the US Department of Labor, “but in the long-term suppression of workers’ pay.”
On that same note of wage suppression, the working class labors largely union free in the US. Private-sector workers, the majority of the American labor force, do not collectively bargain their wages, salaries, and working conditions with employers.
Why? Anti-labor union policies are one of the main workplace conditions that have marked the postwar economy since the 1970s. Other anti-worker policies causing wage suppression are corporate-driven globalization and excessive unemployment.
So-called free trade pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement happened under Democratic President Bill Clinton. Corporations relocated to Mexico, where workers earn a fraction of the pay that their American counterparts receive.
The federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009, when President Barack Obama was in the White House. He promised to sign the Employee Free Choice Act, an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. With the EFCA, a simple majority of employees (50%) could check a card showing support to join a union at a workplace, replacing the National Labor Relations Board secret-ballot elections stacked in favor of employers.
First, however, the EFCA required enough votes to pass the Senate and House for President Obama to sign it into law, as he promised to. Democrats held a majority in the House and Senate in 2009-2011, Obama’s first term, but the bill never made it through the upper house.
Democrats had a majority in both chambers at the start of his presidency in the 111th Congress (2009-2011). The bill made it through the House but died in the Senate. “Several lobbying and consulting groups aligned with the Democratic Party were actively working with anti-union employers to defeat the EFCA,” according to the Arizona State University School Center for Work and Democracy.
The Democratic Party controlled the House and Senate when President Joe Biden took office in January 2021. Recall that Biden said, "Nothing fundamental will change," to his wealthy donors before winning the White House over Trump. Nothing fundamental changed in terms of reversing the fall of labor unions and rise of anti-union companies such as Walmart and Amazon.
Weakening unions has been a leading policy of neoliberalism, moving income and wealth from the bottom and middle to the top. Out with New Deal and Great Society policies for those who live on wages and salaries. In with policies for those who live on profits from investment capital.
Cut to today. The affordability crisis, the struggle to make ends meet, is a class struggle. That struggle is gaining traction electorally, beginning with the two presidential campaigns of Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.
A more recent case in point is the victory of Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, in NYC. How? He in part focused on rising prices of childcare, food, and rent compared with salaries and wages.
That is why the voters in NYC chose him as mayor recently. NYC’s response to systemic unaffordable childcare, food, and rent is, therefore, a conscious decision of the working class on behalf of its own self-interest, electorally speaking.
Therein lies a dilemma. I mean the fact that Democratic candidates, once elected, sell out their voters. By contrast, donors with deep pockets get what they demand, election after election.
This relationship profits donors. The politics of capitalist economics is a powerful force to contend with. There is no alternative to confronting this force, to paraphrase the late British Pime Minister Margaret Thatcher, proclaiming the power of liberal capitalism to rule via crushing opposition its opponents.
The popularity of Mr. Mamdani in NYC and Katie Wilson, mayor-elect in Seattle, who like him focuses laser like on policies to address the cost-of-living crisis for working families, suggests that the electoral engagement of those who live on wages and salaries is rising. That’s a step forward but by no means a victory over a resilient economic system with a track record of crushing and co-opting political reforms that improve people’s lives.
"His campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for."
Amid calls for ousting Democratic congressional leadership because the party caved in the government shutdown fight over healthcare, a YouGov poll released Monday shows the nationwide popularity of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's economic agenda.
Mamdani beat former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in both the June Democratic primary and last week's general election by campaigning unapologetically as a democratic socialist dedicated to making the nation's largest city more affordable for working people.
Multiple polls have suggested that Mamdani's progressive platform offers Democrats across the United States a roadmap for candidates in next year's midterms and beyond. As NYC's next mayor began assembling his team and the movement that worked to elect him created a group to keep fighting for his ambitious agenda, YouGov surveyed 1,133 US adults after his victory.
While just 31% of those surveyed said they would have voted for Mamdani—more than any other candidate—and the same share said they would vote for a candidate who identified as a "democratic socialist," the policies he ran on garnered far more support.
YouGov found:
Data for Progress similarly surveyed 1,228 likely voters from across the United States about key pieces of Mamdani's platform before his win. The think tank found that large majorities of Americans support efforts to build more affordable housing, higher taxes for corporations as well as millionaires and billionaires, and free childcare, among other policies.

"There's a common refrain from some pundits to dismiss Mamdani's victory as a quirk of New York City politics rather than a sign of something bigger," Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell wrote last week. "But his campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for. The lesson isn't that every candidate should mimic his style—you can't fake authenticity—but that voters everywhere respond when a candidate connects economic populism to clear, actionable goals."
"Candidates closer to the center are running on an affordability message as well," he noted, pointing to Democrat Mikie Sherrill's gubernatorial victory in New Jersey. "When a center-left figure like Sherill is running on taking on corporate power, it underscores how central economic populism has become across the political spectrum. Her message may have been less fiery than Mamdani's, but she drew from a similar well of voter frustration over rising costs and corporate influence. In doing so, Sherrill demonstrated to voters that her administration would play an active role in lowering costs—something that voters nationwide overwhelmingly believe the government should be doing."
The election of Mamdani in New York City would indeed send a message across the country and the world.
On Tuesday, New York, the largest city in America, has an opportunity to elect Zohran Mamdani, a young man, a democratic socialist, an immigrant (at age seven), a Muslim, a progressive, and someone hated by Donald Trump. And no wonder, since he’s the antithesis of Trump. No wonder he brings fear to the reactionary forces largely represented by the president and his supporters.
Zohran Mamdani is one of nearly 3.1 million immigrants now living in New York City, close to one-third of its total population. Its inhabitants are 30.9% White, 28.7% Hispanic or Latino, 20.2% Black or African American, and 15% Asian. There are also 800 languages spoken in New York City, and nearly four million residents speak a language other than English. That fact does anything but warm the hearts of reactionary folks, since many of them worry about what’s known as “replacement theory,” an idea created by White nationalist Republican strategists to scare the hell out of their base.
Mamdani is running a very New York-focused election campaign, but one that also speaks to low-income and moderate-income voters across this nation. So many in Donald Trump’s America are now facing the possibility of either losing their healthcare or having healthcare that’s simply far too expensive and doesn’t cover what they need. All too many confront rising housing costs or their inability to purchase a home. All too many are seeing the cost of college reach a level that makes it unaffordable for their children and are now experiencing significant healthcare expenses, whether for young children or elderly sick parents, that have become suffocating.
Here in New York City, poverty is already double the national average. One quarter of New Yorkers don’t have enough money for housing, food, or medical care. Twenty-six percent of children (that’s 420,000 of them!) live in poverty. Of the 900,000 children in the city’s public school system, 154,000 are homeless. (And sadly, each of these sentences should probably have an exclamation point after it!) In the face of such grim realities, Mamdani, among other policies, is calling for a freeze on rents in rent-stabilized apartment buildings in the city; making buses free; offering free childcare for those under the age of five; building significant amounts of new affordable housing; improving protections for tenants; providing price-controlled, city-owned grocery stores as an option; and raising the minimum wage.
At its most basic, the Mamdani campaign is about affordability and the dignity of working people.
Make no mistake: Zohran Mamdani distinctly represents the “other” in Donald Trump’s universe. In that world, he’s viewed as not White, which is in itself a crime for so many of the president’s supporters. Trump has always been a divider. As the Guardian reported in 2020 in a piece headlined, “The politics of racial division: Trump borrows Nixon’s southern strategy,” the president warned that, if Joe Biden were to replace him as president, the suburbs would be flooded with low-income housing.
He’s backed supporters who have sometimes violently clashed with Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters across the country. He even refrained from directly condemning the actions of a teenager charged with killing two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, suggesting that he might have been killed if he hadn’t done what he did. He’s also called the BLM movement a “symbol of Hate.”
With such rhetoric, the president is indeed taking a page or two out of the 1960s “southern strategy,” the playbook Republican politicians like President Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater once used to rally political support among White voters across the South by leveraging racism and White fear of “people of color.” Much of what drives Republican strategists today is figuring out what can be done to slow and mute the browning of America. It’s always important to remember that race is almost invariably a critical issue in the American election process.
The election of Mamdani in New York City would indeed send a message across the country and the world that this — my own city — is a place where immigrants can achieve political office and thrive. It would send a message that an agenda focused on low-income people — promising to provide them with opportunity, access to needed resources, and assistance — is a winning approach. In truth, Mamdani’s platform and agenda could undoubtedly be used to attract large groups of Americans who might indeed upend the political situation in many conservative districts across America. In other words, it — and Mamdani — are a threat.
As an observer of the Mamdani campaign, I can’t help reflecting on the civil rights struggle I was engaged in during the 1960s in the South. The challenges were enormous and the dangers great, but we made lasting change possible.
I hear a lot about the number and intensity of the workers in the Mamdani campaign. From my own past experience, I believe that the intensity of those involved in his campaign, the fact that many of them are workers, and their focus on affordability add up to a distinctly winning combination.
Let me now break down the future Mamdani experience as mayor of New York into four categories:
Vision
Zohran Mamdani has what it takes to be a great mayor because he has a vision that speaks to so many sectors of New York’s population, emphasizing as he does the dignity of working people and hope as an active force to put in place meaningful programs for a better future. He articulates a future for this city that is more equitable and will make it so much more livable for so many. As a politician, he’s both an optimist and unafraid to propose big solutions.
Dignity
At its most basic, the Mamdani campaign is about affordability and the dignity of working people. I’ve lived in this city for nearly 60 years and raised my family here. My wife was born here and has lived here her entire life. She was raised by a single father who worked for a fabric company. We managed to build a middle-class life, but right now such a future is anything but a given for so many in a city that has become all too difficult for working people to remain in and create a life worth living.
Make no mistake: Zohran Mamdani distinctly represents the “other” in Donald Trump’s universe.
It’s no small thing that, at this moment in the city’s history, Mamdani has made affordability the central issue of his campaign and suggested that a more affordable New York can be created based on a tax increase on those earning more than a million dollars annually. His focus on the dignity of working people and their families allows his message to have a deep resonance among the population and reach the young, the middle-aged, and the old. His focus is on how New York City can restructure its operations so that it serves us all, not just the well-off and the rich.
Hope
I suspect Zohran Mamdani recognizes that his focus on dignity is also connected to “hope,” and that such hope would be an active force in achieving change. His version of hope isn’t about mere optimism. It’s much broader than that. I was a member of the last generation born into segregation and a Jim Crow system in the American South. During my college days, the most powerful voice for dignity and hope in America was Martin Luther King Jr. He was just 26 years old when he was asked to lead the fight for civil rights and against segregation and Jim Crow in Montgomery, Alabama. Though that fight, in which I was a participant, did indeed seek to end segregation, it was equally about securing a sustainable economic life for Blacks. Indeed, Martin Luther King lost his life fighting for a decent wage for sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee.
Zohran Mamdani has been influenced by Dr. King when it comes to his focus on the issues of Dignity and Hope (which should indeed be capitalized in Donald Trump’s America). In a recent interview in the Nation Magazine, responding to a question about how he defines himself, and if he considers himself a democratic socialist, he said, “I think of it often in terms that Dr. King shared decades ago: ‘Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism. But there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s Children.’” King believed that hope was not a passive but an active force. As he once said, “We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”
Inclusiveness and Outreach
I spent 36 years working in the New York City and New York state government, much of that time as the leader or commissioner of agencies impacting the daily lives of citizens. I served under mayors Ed Koch, Mario Cuomo, David Dinkins, Michael Bloomberg, and Bill de Blasio. I was City Personnel Director, Commissioner of Human Rights for the State of New York, and Director of the Bureau of Labor Services. I finished my government service with a 16-year stint as Deputy Fire Commissioner for the Fire Department of New York City. And I know one thing: it’s critical to have vision and purpose if you plan to lead such a city successfully. In addition, a mayor can only put in place big ideas and see them to fruition if he’s connected to all the diverse constituencies and array of institutions that also work daily to reach citizens. In terms of outreach, Governor Mario Cuomo, the father of Andrew Cuomo, once told me that he judged a commissioner by how much time he spent in the community talking and listening to people as opposed to sitting in the office.
New York City has a population of 8.5 million people, which swells each day to more than 15 million, if you include all the commuters and visitors who must be served. With an annual budget of nearly $116 billion, it would be difficult for any mayor to manage. No one can truly be prepared for it, so it’s critical that the mayor selects a group of managers who have the experience and moxie to achieve his or her goals. I’m not concerned about Mamdani’s youth because no one becomes mayor with the singular management skills to confront such a giant budget and the diverse, powerful interest groups within the metropolis. None of those who preceded him, not Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani, Bloomberg, de Blasio, or Adams, could have led the city without the help of a cadre of able managers. Some chose well. Some chose poorly.
It’s critical, though, that if he wins on November 4th, a future Mamdani administration be composed of astute, experienced managers, from first deputy mayor to all the agency heads. And it’s not merely the agency heads who must be capable and well-focused, but all the other managers and deputies within those agencies, too. After all, in New York City, from fiscal crises to snowstorms, sanitation issues to policing, violence in the streets to ethnic tensions, education to housing, union negotiations to potential conflicts with New York State and the federal government, crises erupt on a remarkably regular basis. And don’t forget the more than 210,000 migrants who have arrived in the city since the spring of 2022 in search of an opportunity for a better life. All of that can overwhelm any mayor.
As a result, assuming he wins, Mamdani’s Transition Committee must cast a wide net for the best managers the city has to offer. On the whole, they should be young, yet seasoned. They should be diverse and represent an array of sectors. What he needs are not “yes” personnel but leaders who are themselves astute, critical, and committed to government service. His outreach should be to all races, religions, business areas, and nonprofit groups. As it happens, I’m encouraged by reports in the press of the way he’s already reaching out and I hope he does so in all the years of his mayoralty.
If Mamdani merges a focus on leadership and management with his already clear commitment to expanding affordability, dignity, hope, and opportunity for ever more New Yorkers, then he’ll cement his place in the city’s history and possibly—as Donald Trump grows ever less popular in a distinctly disturbed country—in American history, too.