🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
Anti-capitalist populists like to tell people what they want to hear rather than the truth.
So many of them were quite upset at commentator Ben Shapiro’s recent contention that New Yorkers who struggle with affordability should move.
“If you’re a young person and you can’t afford to live here, then maybe you should not live here,” Shapiro reasonably told the hosts of the Triggernometry podcast.
“I mean, that is a real thing. I know we live in a society that says you deserve to live where you grew up, but the reality is that the history of America is almost literally the opposite of that.”
The post-liberal “heritage American” faction on social media immediately piled on.
“If we want Democrats to have a super majority, then this is the message for the GOP to adopt,” Mike Cernovich wrote.
“Tell people they need to move. Don’t form family bonds,” he continued. “Worship the banks and big corporations. My goodness!”
If there’s a better way to “worship” a bank than borrowing $800,000 on a 30-year mortgage at 6.5% for a 900-square-foot home in Park Slope, I have yet to hear of it.
Nonetheless, Shapiro’s advice is not only sound, it’s a longtime American practice.
Migration is an American institution. Most of our ancestors fled from elsewhere, and when they got here, they continued to move.
California’s population exploded after World War II, when millions flooded the state.
Over the past few decades, Americans have been moving south: Florida and Texas have been overrun with newcomers over the past 50 years.
Every generation transforms the country. Shapiro, not incidentally, moved from California to Florida.
In 1950, Detroit was a booming industrial city with 1.8 million residents, while Phoenix had 106,000 residents.
Today, 640,000 people live in Detroit and 1.6 million in Phoenix.
In 1950, Houston was the 14th-largest city in the country, neck and neck with Buffalo, New York.
Today, Houston is the fourth-largest metro area in the United States, while Buffalo ranks 81st.
You think moving is a new thing?
Despite popular perceptions, we’re moving less than our parents did.
In 1970, around 20% of people moved from their homes each year, with 3.4% moving out of state.
Now, 7.7% of people a year move, with 1.7% moving out of state.
And families aren’t worse off than they were in the costly, poorly run or dying areas.
It’s not an accident that areas with the most new construction are in North Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Tennessee and Florida.
There’s not a single Northeastern metro area in the top 20 in new construction — and outside Columbus, Ohio, there isn’t one in the Rust Belt.
Convincing people to stay in stagnant areas with limited economic opportunities or crushing costs only inhibits couples from forming larger families.
Dependency, often the other choice, is a way to destroy families, not build them.
There are, of course, a host of policies that drive housing prices up across the nation.
Rezone, deregulate, get rid of tariffs on lumber and steel, and build more homes.
Pass school-choice laws so public schools don’t artificially inflate the price of homes in good districts.
Get a hold of inflation and bring down interest rates.
There are plenty of metro areas that could benefit from more housing.
But in some places, it is unlikely anything will make a significant dent in costs — and people have to come to terms with reality.
We all make trade-offs.
The problem with economic statists is that they think the state can, and should, provide a solution to all your problems.
Young socialists demand that the government come up with a magical formula that makes Brooklyn apartments affordable. It’s never going to happen.
Populists want a magic formula that will reinvigorate Rust Belt towns and bring back their former glory. In most cases, that’s not going to happen, either.
Whether pointing this out is a good political message is largely irrelevant. It’s simply the truth.
David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. X: @davidharsanyi