Shapiro’s ‘Just Move’ Argument Misunderstands Affordability Crisis
The recent election of Zohran Mamdani as a New York City leader highlights affordability as the top concern for voters, with over half citing the cost of living as the biggest issue. Mamdani gained support by proposing various government-funded solutions like rent freezes and free public services, which many critics warn would be harmful in the long run. Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro suggests that young people unable to afford living in expensive cities should consider relocating to places with better opportunities, reflecting a conventional “bootstraps” approach. However, this argument overlooks the modern reality: today’s lack of a true frontier and national-level economic problems such as inflation and housing shortages make moving less effective. Furthermore, internal migration can create cultural clashes and erode community bonds when newcomers bring diffrent political views and policies. The affordability crisis in the U.S. is a widespread issue involving housing, healthcare, and other living costs that requires serious, practical solutions rather than simplistic advice to move. Without addressing these root problems, radical proposals like Mamdani’s may gain appeal among younger generations frustrated by ongoing economic challenges.
According to exit polling, the top issue for the New York City voters who elected communist Islamist Zohran Mamdani was affordability. Over half of the electorate rated “cost of living” as the biggest issue facing the city (the next biggest issue was crime at 23 precent), and nearly two-thirds of those who said cost of living was the biggest issue cast their vote for Mamdani.
In response to New Yorkers’ concerns over how they’ll pay rent or afford groceries, Mamdani offered up a buffet of proposals for free stuff on the campaign trail, from government-run grocery stores to freezing rent to free city buses. Now, all of those proposals would prove disastrous for the city in the long term, but New Yorkers responded to the candidate who catered most effectively to their very real concerns.
In a recent appearance on the TRIGGERnometry podcast, commentator Ben Shapiro had some advice for people suffering under New York City’s crushing cost of living. After listing off a few potential solutions like getting rid of rent controls and removing regulations that discourage the construction of more housing, he had this to say:
“[I]f you are a young person and you can’t afford to live here, then maybe you should not live here. I mean, that is a real thing. I know that we’ve now grown up in a society that says that 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 history of America is you go to a place where there is opportunity.”
Ben Shapiro sums up why his brand of conservatism is dying fast and why the populist left will steamroller any Republican parroting Shapiro’s views.
“If you’re a young person and you can’t afford to live here then maybe you should not live here” he says to native New Yorkers. pic.twitter.com/DwsfCbzvb1
— Wolf 🐺 (@WorldByWolf) November 9, 2025
This is the traditional answer from the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” wing of the right that saw its heyday in the Reagan era and continues to scold supposedly lazy and entitled young people to this day.
It’s a tedious, defeatist argument that ignores a central characteristic of American expansion and conveniently sidesteps the real problem of affordability.
Americans have moved to places of greater opportunity, first from Europe to the original colonies and then from the East Coast to the West. However, those previous migrations were markedly different from what we’re seeing today. Though many Americans did move to the frontier out of a belief that there weren’t any opportunities back home, many more went to forge a new life and try to make their fortune, not merely to survive. The push West was a positive push that civilized an untamed wilderness and allowed enterprising people to become far more wealthy than they otherwise would have been. And the settlers, from the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock to the pioneers on the Oregon Trail, saw their movements as fundamentally positive endeavors for themselves and for their posterity, not as acts of desperation.
But, today, the frontier is gone (except Alaska, and maybe Montana, Idaho, etc.), and the current resettlement has taken on a decidedly negative character. People are trying to escape crushing regulations, overwhelming foreign migration, censorship, gender insanity, and outrageous crime levels within their own country.
In reality, it’s difficult to escape many of those problems because there is no frontier, and the federal government has made those issues national issues, so people end up moving to slightly less repressive states. While most acutely felt in large cities in predominantly blue states, the affordability crisis is a national issue, and moving somewhere with a slightly lower state income tax or slightly fewer regulations will only go so far when a large portion of the problems are coming from the federal government. Inflation is a national curse. Homeownership is out of reach for young people across the country, not just in the largest cities or wealthiest suburbs.
Even if people leave New York or another leftist state and move to a less insane place, there’s a good chance they bring their dumb policies with them. We’ve seen that with the growth of leftist enclaves in red states like Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina. And the locals, especially if the new residents are bringing their failed policies with them, may not appreciate a sudden influx of newcomers who don’t share their customs, traditions, or historical ties to their new homes. This, in turn, erodes the bonds and sense of community in a given place, breeding even more division and resentment. The people who seek to leave New York City and other once-great cities are in the same boat.
They’re being pushed out and priced out by the swathes of immigrants that our leaders have imported for decades. Their own communities, subcultures, and traditions have been destroyed by foreign mass migration, so they seek refuge by moving to a new state. This creates a domino effect that does nothing but harm the already frayed bonds holding this nation together.
Ultimately, just telling people to move doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. It’s unproductive and likely won’t get through to the people Shapiro believes need to hear it. It’s little more than an exercise in virtue-signaling. We have severe economic and domestic problems in this country that normal, hard-working people struggle with every day. The affordability crisis, which encompasses everything from housing to health care to college to groceries and gas, can’t be hand-waved away. That attitude only makes more radical and dangerous solutions, like those proposed by Mamdani, seem all the more appealing to a younger generation that already feels like its long-term interests are constantly ignored for short-term gain.
If we continue to fail to address those fundamental problems, eventually it won’t matter where you move to. Fiscal insolvency will be felt everywhere. A leftist totalitarian government will find you no matter where you try to hide. Except for people like Ben Shapiro, who will always have somewhere to flee to if the state of affairs becomes untenable. Normal people don’t. So they might as well make their stand now before it’s too far gone.
Hayden Daniel is a staff editor at The Federalist. He previously worked as an editor at The Daily Wire and as deputy editor/opinion editor at The Daily Caller. He received his B.A. in European History from Washington and Lee University with minors in Philosophy and Classics. Follow him on Twitter at @HaydenWDaniel
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."