As I have said many times, the problem with progressive/socialist ideology is its impracticality. The gap between the programs they advocate and the likelihood of successful implementation is wide. Progressives continually fail to recognize that human society operates under a set of rules rooted in human nature, not some arbitrary conceptualization.
Humans have an innate ability to survive, forged over a couple hundred thousand years, and their survival depends on individual physical and mental abilities and, to some degree, their willingness to work with others to accomplish common objectives.
Until agriculture began, some 9000 years ago, strength, ingenuity, and mental capacity were paramount. Then the concept of land ownership emerged, introducing wealth as the dominant force in human society. Wealth transcended strength and mental capacity because wealthy individuals could purchase those skills. Managing wealth requires intelligence, either from the owner or from those he or she hires to manage it.
Governments emerged when landowners needed a way to manage the marketing of their assets (farm production). As societies grew beyond the size of a small village, some form of civic control became necessary (laws and police) to maintain order.
Human societies have always been stratified by social standing and by wealth. Wealth created the opportunity to raise social standing, which extended beyond the reach of individual talent.
There is no practical way to negate these long-standing human behaviors without resorting to force. Humans accept societal hierarchies as “rules of the road” because they make sense.
An exception to the rules of the road occurs when the wealthy accumulate too much, and the public suffers greatly. This situation leads to civil unrest because the public sees the government as unfair, a perception that has forced change on many occasions over the past 800 years.
The Catholic Church lost its monopoly on moral authority when it abused its power. Later, monarchies were replaced by democracies as the public demanded equality. During the dismantling of monarchies, the concept of socialism emerged. It sounded wonderful as a humanist ideal, but its practical implementation has eluded its followers for 170 years.
Let’s look at a practical example of applied socialism in the present day, courtesy of the administration of New York City Mayor Mamdani.
In October 2025, during his mayoral campaign, Mamdani introduced the concept of 30 by 30, a statement of his goal to raise the minimum wage in New York City to $30/hour by 2030.
January 1, 2026 — Mamdani takes office; The state-mandated minimum for NYC rises to $17/hour. The $30 proposal remains a policy commitment, not law. In early January, labor-policy observers are already highlighting the unresolved question of whether NYC has the legal authority to set a separate minimum wage.
February 13, 2025 — Mamdani unveils the proposal. His proposed trajectory is roughly $20 in 2027, $23.50 in 2028, $27 in 2029, and $30 in 2030, followed by automatic increases. Crucially, from the beginning, he says he intends to work with the City Council to enact a local minimum wage law rather than simply impose it administratively.
On March 10th, 2026, Mamdani’s campaign slogan finally became a bill to be taken up by the city council. The mayor wasn’t present for the announcement. A written statement from him read: “The administration is reviewing the legislation.” The spokeswoman, Dora Pacek, said that Mayor Mamdani believes all New Yorkers need to earn a living wage and that, as the administration reviews this specific legislation, the mayor remains committed to tackling the cost-of-living crisis using every tool at the city’s disposal.
On March 23rd, the press asked the administration about 30 in 30. This time, a different spokesperson, Cassio Mendoza, responded. He said that Mayor Mamdani believes every New Yorker deserves a living wage and remains committed to using every available tool to reduce the cost of living and deliver real relief to working people.
Buried in the new bill was a change to how tipped workers are paid. It would eliminate the tipped wage credit for New York City restaurants. Restaurant owners could no longer count a portion of a server’s tips toward meeting their minimum wage obligation. That credit would be eliminated, and owners would be on the hook for the full hourly rate. Every server, every shift, tips or no tips, would be affected, including in businesses that feel the pinch first.
Steakhouses aren’t the eight-table places with one owner, one cook, and a nephew washing dishes on weekends. Jessica Walker, president of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, said it in one sentence the week the bill dropped. This is not a raise for workers. It is a closing notice for businesses.
Mamdani’s opposition isn’t limited to Albany and its authority to set minimum wages in New York state. The bill still has to get through a city council led by Speaker Julie Menon, a moderate Democrat. When asked about this in March, her spokesman, Eric Sunshine, said the speaker looks forward to reviewing the legislation introduced last March.
April–July 2026 — essentially no legislative movement. The Council’s official history records only two actions: March 10 — Introduced by Council; March 10 — Referred to Committee. There is no committee vote, no Council vote, and no mayoral action recorded after that.
August 8, 2026 — The Times interviewed Nurse about the proposal. She described the bill as still pending and said she hoped it would receive a hearing “in the coming months.”
August 13, 2026 — current status. The Council’s current legislative page still lists Int. 0757-2026 as: Status: Committee: Consumer and Worker Protection. There has been no hearing, committee vote, defeat, withdrawal, full-Council vote, or enactment.
There is an obvious political question underlying that chronology: why has a signature Mamdani campaign promise been sitting without even a hearing for five months in a Council controlled by Democrats? They have a supermajority.
The answer, of course, is that Democratic leaders in New York don’t know how to handle an impractical campaign promise made by their mayor, which helped him get elected. They hope their silence will give the electorate enough time to forget the mayor’s promise.
Unfortunately, there aren’t enough progressives who understand business, and those who do are apparently overcome by the bright lights of their ideology.
The only way for the government to give people things is to take them from someone else. This is what Marx advocated. In the United States, 99.9% of businesses are small, with fewer than 500 employees. Ninety percent of small businesses have fewer than 20 employees. In New York, these include service organizations and restaurants.
Restaurants have a labor overhead of about 35%. For every $1,000 in revenue, $350 goes toward employee pay. The average profit for a full-service restaurant is 2.8%, so $1,000 in revenue generates $28 in profit. If the current minimum wage in New York City is $17/hour and the mayor wants to raise it to $30/hour (a 76% increase), labor costs would rise to 61% of revenue, and profit would be -24%! It’s simple math, stupid.
One of the most unethical aspects of politics, whether conservative or liberal, is the unfulfilled campaign promises. They are essentially lies meant to garner support, then buried after the election. Progressive lies are bigger than conservative lies because they are impossible to deliver. Unfortunately, reality never stops them from wishing and hoping.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
> Governments emerged when landowners needed a way to manage the marketing of their assets[.]
I think this is likely an excessively optimistic perspective on the evolution of things. For the most part, as I understand it, governments arose primarily from the warrior class trading their skill at arms for the support of the people they were protecting from "foreign invaders", even if in the beginning, those invaders were just the next village over.
I suppose that could be called "the marketing of assets", though it seems more like just making sure that the neighbors didn't come steal them. And the "trade" between warrior and farmer may have been less voluntary than a modern person would likely consider ideal. Though it's really not significantly worse than the nature of current governments and their tax base.
That pedantry aside, I strongly concur with your thesis here, that "progressive" economic policy is nothing more than a series of pretty lies, promising the robbing of selected Peter to pay for collective Paul. Fundamentally, they don't seem to understand that it's impossible to actually *generate* wealth by simply moving it around. And that's when I'm not being excessively pessimistic, and thinking they *do* understand, but recognize the moving as an excellent opportunity to skim some for themselves. After all, isn't it strange how all of the progressive politicians end up wealthy, while the people who they promised to help end up worse off than they were before.
Pure coincidence, I'm sure.