The buzziest political word of the year is “affordability” — the mantra that carries the rebel progressive candidate. Zohran Mamdani Democrats have raced to claim the mayoralty in New York City, and since then across the country.
“Affordability is centralcentral reason to be a Democrat,” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren declared in August. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has similarly put “affordability” at the center of his administration and his state’s housing reform. Plans to manufacture generic insulin pens. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison launched his re-election bid this week under the banner of “Carry your life“
Few candidates or elected officials are willing to admit what many economists say quietly: that prices tend to be “sticky“And that, absent a major economic downturn, costs aren’t likely to drop much from where they are today. Still, Democratic strategists who worry that the Joe Biden-led party has long ignored cost-of-living issues and the growing frustration around inflation are happy to see “affordability” take center stage. America’s Democratic candidates are the finalists by the Democrats. Even the left gave the term legitimacy — a decade ago. Despite “affordability” standing out as vague, the squishy narrative socialists blamed for watering down the goal of universal health care through the Affordable Care Act.
But when it comes explanation Given today’s affordability crisis, the party finds itself embroiled in seemingly endless factional debates — with each camp asserting their The diagnosis is primary one. Cause of crisis, as Abundance theory argumentsAre we not building enough? Or the complaint of some populists, Because of corporate greed and the recklessness of Wall Street? or because we have engaged in unbelief, Allows to take exclusive possession And artificially raise prices? or cause, as Progressives argued in the 2010sWere the unions destroyed and too much left to the market? Instead of acknowledging that multiple factors may have played a role, each group essentially dug around its preferred explanation.
One attempt to bring these debates together comes from the Economic Security Project (ESP), a progressive organization focused on direct cash assistance and broader social safety nets. it is Proposing a new analysis of affordability In the hope that a broader framework could lead to clearer political solutions, and perhaps a more harmonious political consensus. Although Mike Konzal, one of the report’s co-authors, insisted in an interview that their work represents an “honest assessment” of structural problems and not a political compromise, it is clear that the analysis aims to offer a more constructive path than the combative one many are used to.
Broken market, broken income
The analysis divides the affordability crisis into two categories: market problems and income problems.
Markets, ESP argues, fail in three main ways:
- First, “gatekeepers” block supply – for example, drug companies Patent stacking to cut off competition, Hospitals are integrated Reduce the choice, and NIMBYs Blocking Housing.
- Second, “fragmented markets” stagnate when a lack of customers makes services unprofitable, leaving rural areas without hospitals or broadband.
- Third, “driven signals” obscure true costs through attribution Like junk fees And Algorithmic pricingThat prevents consumers from comparison shopping and costs them thousands a year.
On the income side, ESP argues that three forces make essentials redundant even when markets are functioning well.
- “Life-cycle mismatch” costs are highest when earnings are low. Child care comes early in the career When paychecks get smaller, health care costs go up in retirement.
- Inequality keeps incomes too low for many families: 43 percent of families cannot cover basic needs, and since 1979, wages have risen only 29 percent while productivity has risen 83 percent.
- Finally, economic shocks like recessions leave lasting scars; For example, workers displaced in a recession can lose up to three years of lifetime earnings.
The framework covers most of the leading theories and treats all six factors as equally important, refusing to rank any one theory against another. It builds on a different framework Jared Bernstein published in SeptemberNeil Mahoney, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Biden and Stanford University economist. The Bernstein-Mahony report lays out more specific policy recommendations than the ESP, although the ESP says it plans to issue such recommendations starting next year.
Both analyzes come as Democrats sort through competing ideas to understand why spending is so high. Most prominent this year was Abundance, popularized by Vox co-founder Ezra Klein and journalist Derek Thompson, which Focuses on supply constraints: Zoning laws block housing, permit delays slow infrastructure, regulatory barriers limit competition. Their diagnosis is that government-imposed barriers are preventing us from making enough of what we need.
ESP includes those arguments but argues that it is incomplete. In child care, for example, if you remove constraints on supply (such as licensing requirements that limit the number of providers or zoning regulations that restrict home-based day care), families will still struggle to afford care early in their careers. Likewise, building more housing is not enough to protect households when job losses or inflation reduce real incomes.
As proof that these different approaches aren’t really in tension, ESP points to California. In the last two years, the state legislator Dr The big YIMBY passed the upzoning law As well as algorithmic rent-setting software such as RealPage and Reforms Targeting Prescription-Drug Intermediaries who mark the price. The same Democratic lawmakers — progressives like state Sen. Scott Weiner and Assemblywoman Buffy Weeks — champion both sets of policies. “At the state level, at the personnel level, we often don’t see these conflicts as much as you might suspect,” Konczal said.
The framework attempts to show that addressing broken markets in one area does not preclude addressing broken incomes in another. Or, to put it another way, the conflicts that often dominate online debates may be more about interpersonal conflicts and group positions than real policy trade-offs.
The future of affordability
Konczal acknowledges that while the framework does not prioritize factors, “people will obviously have disagreements over which is more important,” calling it a “very useful disagreement.” By not making these judgments itself, the framework allows each camp to find legitimacy without forcing trade-offs on which issues deserve the most urgent action.
If the political struggle is ultimately about resource allocation and legislative priorities, what is the point of having a unified framework that sidesteps hard choices?
This raises an obvious question: If the political struggle is ultimately about resource allocation and legislative priorities, what is gained by a unified framework that sidesteps hard choices?
Some, such as Matt Bruenig, founder of the left-wing People’s Policy Project, think the ESP framework gets the argument generally right but weighs the factors poorly. “As far as size goes, income distribution dwarfs everything else,” he told Vox. Declining incomes bear much of the blame for lack of purchasing power, he argues, while theories like monopoly pricing receive more attention than the evidence warrants.
The question of weight connects to a deeper problem. When should markets be fixed and when should they be replaced? This is arguably the key question for affordability and one that various parties have yet to fully face.
Should healthcare be made more affordable through competition and transparency, or should it be ensured through universal coverage? Should housing costs be reduced by increasing supply, or should housing be partly distorted by social housing?
Ironically, “affordability” once meant something very different to progressives. A decade ago, Democrats fought over whether the government should guarantee services or make them cheaper. The Bernie Sanders wing has pushed for universality — Medicare-for-all, free college, housing as a right — while moderates have built goals around access: less expensive insurance, debt-free college, home ownership incentives. “Affordable” has become the compromise word, often dismissed by the left as a desperate cop-out — a promise of market participation rather than universal provision.
Now you have a progressive organization that embraces “affordability” and expressly invokes Social Security-style guarantees for life-cycle costs.
Need to pick one? Kamala Harris’ 2024 campaign shows how “affordability” can cover both approaches. He ran on an “opportunity economy” centered on market-based solutions: small business tax credits, increasing housing supply, cutting red tape. But he also proposed banning grocery price increases, capping prescription drug costs and expanding the child tax credit. “Ability” allows him to do both without explaining when markets need fixing vs. when they need bypassing.
It is either sophisticated politics or strategic ambiguity. The optimistic reading is that the left has evolved beyond the false binary of guarantee versus opportunity. You can fix the market And Provide universal goods – they are complementary, not contradictory. Recognizing that markets can work for some things if we fix them, other things require decommodification is arguably progress.
The pessimistic reading is that “capacity” is doing too much, masking a lack of clarity about priorities. Without a theory of when to use which approach, you get a “do everything” framework that risks defaulting to market-based solutions because they are easy and politically palatable, even when the right answer might be to fight for universal programs.
When I asked the report’s authors if they had a theory for when something should be guaranteed versus made more affordable, they were hesitant. “It depends,” Konzkal said, adding that “most economic problems involve both sides.” He pointed to universal options as a balanced approach, but offered little clarity on when to deploy them. “Markets can innovate and scale, while providing public options, setting benchmarks and ensuring universal access,” he said.
Their sector-specific reports planned for 2026 will be a clear test of where this framework ultimately leads. That’s where we’ll see if it can tackle the thorny questions: What should we stop trying to enable people to do?
Update, Nov. 5, 10 a.m. ET: This article was originally published on October 22 and has been updated to reflect the results of the New York City mayoral election.
