Zohran Mamdani’s recent victory in New York City’s mayoral race has sparked a debate about whether the city’s billionaire class will abandon Gotham once and for all. The 34-year-old democratic socialist campaigned on an ambitious (and costly) “affordability” agenda: freezing rents on 1 million apartments, raising the minimum wage to $30 per hour by 2030, establishing government-run grocery stores and universal child care—and funding it all through higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. As a result, several ultrarich residents vocally opposed Mamdani’s election, noting that his big government plans would likely add, not remove, burdens for most New Yorkers and would push the city’s super-elite to relocate elsewhere.

Since Mamdani’s big win, some of those billionaires have already walked back their threats, and several commentators have gleefully noted that the rest of the city’s elites need—or simply love—NYC too much to abandon it for greener, cheaper pastures. Yet this focus on the city’s billionaire class mostly misses the point. Aside from the most extreme and unrealistic of Mamdani’s wealth-confiscating plans, the flight risk arising from his proposals policies was never about billionaires; it was about their employees—the higher-earning New Yorkers who can’t easily absorb the higher costs and greater inconveniences that Mamdani’s plans will produce but can move to places, near and far, where life is a little easier. These HENRY (“high-earner-not-rich-yet”) workers form the backbone of New York’s economy and, thanks in large part to remote work, have been increasingly heading for the exits. Mamdani’s policies could accelerate their departure, harming New York along the way.

What Mamdani Can (and Can’t) Actually Do—and What It Will Cost

Before we get to that, however, it’s important to note that political realities will likely limit which policies Mamdani can actually implement, even with a big mandate. As our Dispatch colleagues reported last week, he probably won’t fulfill his signature promise to raise income and corporate taxes because “under state law, New York City cannot raise the city income tax without Albany signing off,” and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has already rejected the idea (in part because she’s facing her own reelection in 2026). Other proposals, such as free buses and that $30 hourly minimum wage, also need state approval. And without new tax revenue, other parts of Mamdani’s agenda—free child care, tons of new public housing—-face major fiscal constraints because of an already-large budget gap (caused in part by the city attracting fewer American millionaires between 2010 and 2022 than places like California, Texas, and Florida—more on that in a second).

Several of Mamdani’s other plans have a better shot of being implemented in some form, albeit likely watered down. His promise of a four-year freeze on rents for the 40 percent of New York City apartments that are rent-controlled, for example, faces legal hurdles. But it’d be surprising if the city’s nine-member Rent Guidelines Board, which Mamdani will surely influence via new appointments and political strong-arming, doesn’t pass some form of expanded rent control. New York City mayors also have substantial authority over appointments, agency priorities, and enforcement, so we should also expect his administration to push the city’s child care, education, and municipal workforce policies as far left as they can feasibly go in the near term, and for him to use the bully pulpit to agitate for longer term reforms at the city and state level.

Yet even a watered-down version of Mamdani’s agenda—partial rent freezes, higher minimum wages for city contractors, more union mandates, expanded public child care, less choice in education, etc.—would impose new burdens on both businesses and most residents, especially HENRY workers who are too rich to qualify for government benefits but too poor to simply shrug off higher costs.

Housing provides the most obvious example. Little chance that a HENRY couple would qualify for new public housing or “affordable” units, either built by public-private initiatives or required to be set aside for low- and middle-income workers. (As an aside, various estimates show that requiring union labor for new “affordable” housing in NYC would raise construction costs by 30 percent or more, with some Manhattan units costing upward of $1 million each! Hence, the snarky scare-quotes.)

Any expansion of rent control, meanwhile, will surely harm more New Yorkers than it helps. As we’ve discussed, the evidence on rent control is overwhelming and unambiguous: It helps a handful of local renters but reduces housing supply, decreases maintenance, distorts markets, and ultimately makes cities less comfortable and affordable for everyone else. Renters competing in New York’s unregulated market would face higher prices when, for example, frozen rents push already-struggling buildings into foreclosure. (The city’s Rent Guidelines Board data shows that 10 percent of rent-regulated buildings—totaling more than 64,000 units—are already operating at a loss.) The additional supply crunch would force HENRYs to bid against each other—and people with even deeper pockets—for whatever housing is left, pushing prices even higher.

New child care policies would likely cause similar problems. The average cost of private, center-based infant care in New York City already exceeds $25,000 annually, while less-regulated “family care” is still more than $20,000. Many New York families with two children often pay more for child care than rent! Mandating higher wages for child care workers while expanding access through new city-run centers will surely serve some people (though, research cautions, probably not well). Yet it’s bound to increase the cost of both public and private child care in the city, with HENRYs—reluctant to use public daycare or ineligible due to income limits driven by politics or the aforementioned fiscal realities—again on the losing end.

For starters, boosting wages for public child care workers would—along with mandatory benefits and union requirements for city-funded facilities—not only increase the costs of that care but likely pull workers and resources away from private facilities used by wealthier families who won’t qualify for public assistance. (And, as we’ve discussed, U.S. immigration restrictions will surely limit any replacements.) Throw in New York’s already high regulatory costs, and the annual private child care expense for HENRYs could easily exceed $30,000 per child once this “affordability” agenda is enacted.

Other policies, such as higher minimum wages, involve similar trade-offs, with HENRYs usually on the losing end of the trade (higher prices, fewer choices, etc.). Even if many of Mamdani’s plans aren’t implemented, moreover, the mere signaling effect of his agenda also matters: Upper-middle-class professionals planning where to live and raise their families might be unwilling to wait to se