People in New York are about to re-learn a hard lesson: Marxism is economically illiterate.
You can raise someone's share of the pie through socialist policies, but what Marxists don't understand is that "better equality" is being achieved by shrinking the overall pie itself.
On paper, that looks like justice. In real life, it is like stagnation.
Consider a city like NYC. Space is scarce, demand is intense, and taxes are high. Prices rise because a lot of people want limited land and services.
The Marxist answer is simple: “The rich are hoarding wealth, so we should take more of their pie and distribute it better through the state."
It sounds virtuous. It is not economically sound.
Here is why:
1. Static shares vs dynamic growth
Marxism treats the economy as a fixed pie. But economies are dynamic systems. They expand when people invest, take risks, and build.
If you remove the upside for those who create new value (your entrepreneurs, builders, scientists) you don’t merely “redistribute.” You reduce the incentive to create. Less investment means less innovation, fewer new jobs, and slower productivity growth. That smaller pie hurts everyone.
2. Incentives are not optional
If an investor or founder cannot reasonably keep the gains from creating something valuable, they will deploy time and capital elsewhere or not at all.
Its not "greed," it is how scarce capital gets allocated. When policy tells you that success will be confiscated, the rational response is to disengage. That shrinks the tax base, the job base, and the opportunity set for workers.
3. Knowledge and prices matter
Markets communicate information through prices. When a central authority tries to direct output and set prices, it breaks the feedback loop that tells us what to build, where to build it, and how much of it is worth building.
Misallocation rises. Shortages appear. Quality falls. “Equality” achieved by dulling signals leads to lower living standards across the board.
4. Capital flight and the quality of services
High and punitive extraction on producers does not only move money, it moves know-how. The builders, operators, and skilled workers follow opportunity. The city loses the people who improve housing, logistics, energy, and services. These are the very things that make life more affordable over time.
5. Floor vs ceiling confusion
Advocates promise a higher “floor” for the working class by enlarging their share. But when the system that raises the ceiling (innovation and investment) is crippled, the floor sags too. A larger share of a shrinking pie buys less: fewer jobs, less mobility, worse public services.
A quick thought experiment:
Under Marxist logic, your wage share might go up.
Under market logic with strong property rights and predictable rules, your opportunities expand as businesses compete for your labor, new firms enter, and productivity lifts real wages.
Which future gives you more freedom of choice, better career paths, and cheaper goods over time? The one where the economy keeps compounding.
Wanting dignity for workers is right. Wanting a basic safety net is humane. But there is a vast difference between policies that enable people to create value and policies that punish value creation.
The truth is simple: If the affluent cannot reasonably benefit from building, they build less.
When less gets built, the pie shrinks.
When the pie shrinks, a "bigger piece of the pie" still buys you less.
That is why Marxism, as an economic ideology, utterly fails in practice. It confuses a moral impulse (fairness) with a mechanical solution that destroys the engine of prosperity.
If we care about workers, we should care about growth, compounding, and incentives. Expand the pie and protect the rules that let anyone add to it. That is how you raise living standards for all.