Gen-Z socialists think they are fighting billionaires, but their policies could destroy jobs, choke housing, cripple innovation, and leave everyone poorer than before. The scary truth: every major Gen-Z socialist idea has already failed somewhere—and history says the bill always arrives after the applause ends. Rent freezes, AI crackdowns, and billionaire taxes sound heroic until they trigger shortages, fleeing investment, and an economy running on fumes.
I understand why Gen-Z socialism is becoming popular.
Rent is expensive. Groceries cost a small fortune. Child care can drain a
paycheck faster than a leaky bucket drains water. Many young people feel as if
they are running on a treadmill that keeps speeding up while the finish line
moves farther away. I get the frustration. What I do not get is how so many
intelligent young people have convinced themselves that bad economics suddenly
becomes good economics simply because it sounds compassionate.
That is the dirty little secret behind Gen-Z socialism.
Most of its proposals are not new. They are recycled ideas pulled from the
economic graveyard, dusted off, repainted, and presented as revolutionary
breakthroughs. The packaging is new. The product is old.
I hear politicians such as Zohran Mamdani, Zack Polanski,
and their ideological cousins promise rent freezes, government grocery stores,
free transportation, free child care, restrictions on AI, millionaire taxes,
and government efficiency commissions. The crowd cheers. Social media explodes.
Young voters nod approvingly.
Then I ask a simple question.
"Who pays for all this?"
Suddenly the room becomes quieter than a church mouse.
The first problem is rent control. Gen-Z socialists love
rent controls the way children love candy. The trouble is that economics is not
a fairy tale. When governments artificially suppress rents, developers build
fewer apartments because profits shrink. Investors take their money elsewhere.
Existing landlords spend less on maintenance. Housing supply tightens.
The result is painfully predictable. A famous study by
economists Rebecca Diamond, Tim McQuade, and Franklin Qian found that San
Francisco's rent-control expansion reduced the supply of rental housing by
roughly 15% over time. Less supply eventually pushed rents higher for everyone
else. It is the economic equivalent of trying to cure a headache by smashing
your foot with a hammer.
The second problem is price controls on goods and
services. Some Gen-Z socialists dream about government-owned grocery stores
selling cheap food. It sounds wonderful until reality arrives carrying a
baseball bat. History is littered with examples. During the 1970s, President
Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls to combat inflation. The controls
temporarily suppressed prices but eventually created shortages and market
distortions. Venezuela took the idea even further under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás
Maduro. Government-imposed price controls produced shortages so severe that
people struggled to find basic necessities.
Economics has a nasty habit of ignoring political
slogans.
If a loaf of bread costs more to produce than the
government allows sellers to charge, eventually somebody stops baking bread. That
is not greed. That is arithmetic.
The third problem is the crusade against artificial
intelligence. Many Gen-Z socialists want restrictions on AI, data centers, and
workplace automation. They fear job losses. The fear is understandable. The
solution is absurd. Imagine if politicians had halted automobiles to protect
horse-carriage drivers. Imagine if governments had banned computers to protect
typewriter manufacturers. Imagine if they had outlawed tractors to protect farm
laborers.
We would all be poorer today.
Economic history shows that technological revolutions
destroy some jobs while creating others. According to research from the World
Economic Forum, automation may eliminate millions of positions, but it is also
expected to create millions of new ones. The challenge is adaptation, not
prohibition.
Trying to stop AI is like standing on a beach and
ordering the tide not to come in. The tide wins. Every single time.
The fourth problem is the fantasy that taxing
billionaires will fund everything forever. This is perhaps my favorite economic
fairy tale because it collapses under the weight of elementary math. Many Gen-Z
socialists talk as if there are endless vaults of billionaire money waiting to
be raided. There are not. Britain has roughly 100 billionaires. America has
more, but even here the numbers are small relative to the size of government
spending. Wealth taxes often collect far less revenue than promised because
wealthy individuals relocate, restructure assets, or reduce taxable exposure.
France learned this lesson the hard way. Its wealth tax
drove many wealthy residents abroad and ultimately generated disappointing
revenue relative to expectations. Eventually the policy was substantially
revised.
The socialists keep counting chickens before they hatch. The
chickens keep leaving the farm.
The fifth problem is the belief that government
efficiency programs can magically pay for everything. Every politician in
history has promised to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Every politician
discovers that finding major savings is harder than finding a snowball in a
furnace.
Even Elon Musk's highly publicized efforts to identify
government inefficiencies produced far less than many supporters expected.
Bureaucracies are messy. Waste exists, certainly. But the notion that
efficiency alone can finance massive new social programs belongs in the same
category as unicorns and perpetual-motion machines.
The sixth problem is the growing popularity of degrowth
economics. Thinkers such as Jason Hickel and Kohei Saito argue that endless GDP
growth is harmful and that societies should slow down economic expansion.
That idea sounds sophisticated until one asks another
simple question. Where does rising living standards come from?
Historically, economic growth has lifted billions of
people out of extreme poverty. According to World Bank data, global extreme
poverty rates fell dramatically over recent decades largely because economies
expanded, businesses invested, productivity improved, and incomes increased. Economic
growth is not perfect. It creates winners and losers. It can produce
inequality. But without growth, there is less wealth to distribute, fewer jobs
to create, and fewer resources available for education, healthcare,
infrastructure, and innovation.
A shrinking pie does not feed more people. It simply
creates more people fighting over smaller slices.
What fascinates me most about Gen-Z socialism is not its
economics. It is its psychology. Many young voters are not embracing these
ideas because they studied economic history. They are embracing them because
they are angry.
And honestly, they have reasons to be angry. Housing
costs are brutal. Student debt remains burdensome. Inflation has battered
household budgets. Wages often fail to keep pace with expectations. Social
mobility feels weaker than it once did.
But anger is not an economic model. Frustration is not a
fiscal policy. Resentment is not a growth strategy. The tragedy is that many
Gen-Z socialists correctly identify genuine problems while proposing solutions
that would make those problems worse. They see high rents and prescribe rent
controls. They see technological disruption and prescribe technological stagnation.
They see government waste and prescribe larger government. They see expensive
living costs and prescribe policies that often reduce supply and investment.
That is like diagnosing a patient correctly and then
prescribing poison.
I do not doubt their intentions. I doubt their economics.
Gen-Z socialism is selling a free lunch. History keeps
sending back the bill.
And history, unlike politicians, never forgets to
collect.
If you’re looking for
something different to read, some of the titles in my “Brief Book Series”
is available on Google Play Books. You can also read them here on Google
Play, or in Barnes & Noble bookstore:
Brief Book Series.

No comments:
Post a Comment