Populists often seem to prefer sharing what people want to hear rather than addressing the stark realities. Recently, commentator Ben Shapiro sparked a reaction by suggesting that if young New Yorkers struggle to afford living there, they might need to consider moving.
“If you’re a young person and you can’t afford to live here, you probably shouldn’t live here,” he stated during a discussion on the “Triggernometry” podcast. He acknowledged the societal expectation to reside where one grows up, but argued that American history tells a different story.
This remark quickly ignited a postliberal perspective across social media. Mike Cernovich exclaimed, “This is the message Republicans need to adopt if they want to win against Democrats.”
Cernovich continued, asserting that pushing people to move and discouraging family attachments only served to promote worship of banks and big business, which seemed somewhat extreme.
Yet, Shapiro’s suggestion isn’t new; it reflects a longstanding practice in America. Throughout history, immigration has been a fundamental aspect of the nation, with many ancestors relocating after arriving here.
For instance, after World War II, California saw a significant influx of residents. In recent decades, states like Florida and Texas have attracted countless newcomers.
Change is part of every generation’s narrative. It’s notable that Shapiro himself moved from California to Florida.
Take Detroit and Phoenix as examples. In 1950, Detroit thrived with a population of 1.8 million, while Phoenix had just 106,000. Fast forward to today, Detroit’s population has plummeted to 640,000, whereas Phoenix has surged to 1.6 million.
Back in 1950, Houston ranked as the 14th largest U.S. city, tied with Buffalo, but today, Houston stands as the fourth largest while Buffalo lags behind at 81st.
Some might think that moving is a newfound trend, but it seems we aren’t relocating as much as prior generations did. In the 1970s, around 20% of people moved each year, including 3.4% who went out of state. Now, only about 7.7% make such moves, with 1.7% leaving their states.
Interestingly, families today aren’t necessarily worse off in high-cost or declining regions. The areas seeing the most construction are predominantly in North Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Tennessee, and Florida. In contrast, northeastern metropolitan areas have largely fallen out of the top rankings for new development, and only Columbus, Ohio, remains notable in the Rust Belt.
It’s questionable whether convincing people to remain in economically stagnant areas is beneficial. In many cases, economic conditions hinder familial growth rather than nurture it.
While there are various policies aimed at increasing housing access, like easing regulations and more construction, the issue of affordability remains critical. Advocates suggest measures such as the School Choice Act to help control housing inflation in favored neighborhoods.
There are viable metropolitan areas that could thrive with more housing development, but the reality is that costs need to align with market conditions. It’s essential for people to grasp that trade-offs are inevitable.
The challenge arises when economic experts assume that the state has all the answers. Some young activists seek government solutions to make city living more affordable, but those solutions may never materialize.
Moreover, calls to rejuvenate struggling towns often fall flat. Whether or not acknowledging these realities serves as a political advantage is another matter entirely; it remains a fact of life.
