General Discussion

Celerity

(53,014 posts) Fri Nov 7, 2025, 02:46 AM Friday

Zohran Mamdani's Win and the Price of Urban Life: Why City Voters Are Seeking Change

The soaring costs of city life appear to be sending urban voters toward progressive leaders who promise relief, both in the U.S. and globally.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/zohran-mamdanis-win-and-the-price-of-urban-life-why-city-voters-are-seeking-change

From New York to California and beyond, soaring costs seem to be rewriting city politics, as voters respond to candidates who promise to ease the financial squeeze. Zohran Mamdani’s historic win in NYC underscores a shift that has been emerging in recent years – both in the U.S. and globally – and could extend to other major cities.

For example, in Boston, progressive Democrat Michelle Wu, elected in 2021, ran on making city life more affordable with expanded tenant protections, investments in housing, and childcare support. Her most prominent challenger, Josh Kraft, son of Forbes 400 billionaire Robert Kraft, flamed out even before the election. Out west, Oakland’s progressive Democrat Barbara Lee, elected in 2025, focused on tackling homelessness and making housing and daycare more accessible for families. And in Chicago, democratic socialist Brandon Johnson, who took office in 2023, campaigned on “Green Social Housing” and other programs to lower living costs for working families.

Across these cities, the math is clear: when basic necessities like housing, childcare, and utility costs reach stratospheric levels, voters turn to leaders who offer solutions. These mayoral victories reflect the economic pressures impacting urban life and show why cost-of-living issues are now a defining feature of city politics. Let’s take a look at how these four cities – New York, Boston, Oakland, and Chicago – stack up in terms of costs.

When a One-Bedroom Costs a Fortune

Across the U.S., if you’re renting a one‑bedroom apartment, you’re looking at spending about $1,495 a month as of October 2025. But if you happen to live in one of the country’s pricier cities, that number skyrockets fast. In New York City, a simple one‑bedroom will set you back around $4,200 per month, almost three times the national average. Boston renters face similarly steep costs – one‑bedroom apartments in the city average about $3,455 per month. Over in Oakland, it’s about $1,830 per month, and Chicago clocks in at roughly $1,893 per month. The point is clear: if you’re renting in America’s major cities, you’re paying beyond what most renters pay across the country, and that housing squeeze helps explain why affordability is a defining issue in urban politics right now.

When Daycare Drains Your Wallet...................

snip

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Zohran Mamdani's Win and the Price of Urban Life: Why City Voters Are Seeking Change (Original Post) Celerity Friday OP

Thank you SocialDemocrat61 Friday #1

It's a slippery slope, one my US-based daughter confronts every day DFW Friday #2

SocialDemocrat61

(6,420 posts)

1. Thank you

Reply to Celerity (Original post)

Fri Nov 7, 2025, 06:24 AM

Friday

Always such great info in your posts.

DFW

(59,342 posts)

2. It's a slippery slope, one my US-based daughter confronts every day

Reply to Celerity (Original post)

Fri Nov 7, 2025, 07:06 AM

Friday

She and her husband were renting an apartment in Manhattan when Covid hit. Prices for property in Manhattan plunged initially, and they wisely took advantage of that to buy an apartment to live in. They borrowed some money from my other daughter to make the big down payment. Why they didn't ask me, I don't know, but they didn't. My other daughter is rolling in it anyway, so there was a certain logic to that, and she has managed to pay only 50% in income taxes instead of the 73% they are asking of me.

But the day care cost for their two sons is indeed immense. The $26,000 mentioned in your article is probably conservative. My daughter barely makes six figures, and her husband makes maybe double that. But with state and city taxes taking out about half their gross income, and costs of food, utilities, day care and out-of-pocket medical in Manhattan being what they are, they are not left with much at the end of the year, despite that their income might seem like a bloody fortune in Iowa or Kansas.

Rents are high, housing is high, since the law of supply and demand has never been repealed. There's no doubt about it, Manhattan IS a cool place to live. My NYC daughter used to love visiting her great-grandfather while he was alive (he lived to 102), partially because she loved visiting Manhattan where he lived (same apartment since the 1950s, East 89th Street). At age 12, she said, some day I am going to live here. Her first apartment was a crumbling, leaky, rat-infested dump in the east thirties. As she started to move up, finding a dry place and a few roommates, she was able to keep her head above water. I have to give her credit for her determination. She only once asked me for help, and I got it all back within 2 years. But finding a decent place in Manhattan is not an easy task, even if you DO have the money, and there are apparently enough people out there earning enough money to compete for places in nice neighborhoods. These people didn't inherit anything. Her husband's father was murdered by Putin's thugs in Moscow when he was 8 or 9, and was pretty much penniless when he and his mom emigrated to the USA. What he has, he made. He's really smart, and he works like a dog. I say whatever he has left over after taxes, more power to him. I don't see where any government has the right to take more from him/them than 50% of what they earn. They busted their asses to get there, they didn't take it from anyone. Not everyone who lives in Boston, Manhattan or some other desirable city center is drinking champagne from golden cups and getting picked up by a Rolls Royce to their next luncheon appointment.

Reply to this discussion