The 2025 NYC Mayoral Race: A Working-Class Viewpoint
New York City’s 2025 mayoral contest pits three wildly different visions against each other – and the lives of working families are at stake. On one side is Zohran Mamdani, a young Democratic Socialist and state legislator who made affordability his rallying cry. On another is Andrew Cuomo, the ex-governor now running as an independent, courting moderate voters with a centrist platform and promises of pragmatism.
And on the far right is Curtis Sliwa, the perennial Republican candidate best known for his Guardian Angels patrols, pushing a law-and-order message.
Housing Justice and Rent Control
Zohran Mamdani: Mamdani’s campaign is unabashedly centered on housing affordability. He promises to freeze rents on all rent-stabilized apartments immediately, putting a cap on surging costs for nearly a half-million tenants. He vows to build tens of thousands of new affordable homes on city-owned land and through non-profit developers – a direct answer to the crisis pushing working families out of the city. His platform also includes cracking down on predatory landlords and rescuing small homeowners from deed theft schemes. In other words, Mamdani treats rent control and tenant protections as non-negotiable tools to stop displacement. He speaks plainly: the housing market has become a “bedrock of economic insecurity” for the working class, and he will use city power to reverse that.
Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo emphasizes supply-driven solutions. He’s pledged to add 500,000 new housing units over 10 years, with two-thirds “affordable” – largely through tax breaks for developers and looser zoning. On paper that sounds big, but it’s largely more of the same market-focused approach. Cuomo also says he would pour billions into public housing repairs and legal aid for renters facing eviction – gestures that sound helpful. Yet his record as governor complicates things: he slashed a key rental voucher program in the past, and his 2019 rent reforms are often blamed for making building upkeep costlier. This year he even proposed an income cap on rent-stabilized apartments (“Zohran’s Law”), which he touts as progressive but critics say only shifts the burden onto renters while rewarding wealthier tenants. In short, Cuomo talks about apartments and incentives, but he’s never promised an actual rent freeze or sweeping tenant controls. His housing plan relies on the private market to solve affordability – a dubious gamble when rents keep hitting record highs.
Curtis Sliwa: Sliwa frames himself as a champion of “working New Yorkers,” but his housing ideas cater mostly to owners and landlords. He opposes big rezoning projects and calls for local control over development, but he does not propose stronger rent protections. Instead, Sliwa’s plan includes things like rehabilitating vacant rent-controlled units and repealing what he calls “anti-landlord” laws. Translation: he wants to roll back the recent rent laws so landlords can raise rents and make repairs more easily. He also promises to convert empty office buildings into housing and expand middle-class programs like Mitchell-Lama, which are fine but hardly bold. Notably absent is any move to freeze rents or expand rent stabilization; in fact, he’s focused on making property taxes fairer for homeowners and slashing taxes on apartment buildings. In practice, Sliwa’s policies would likely help the small landlords and developers, while renters see only slight relief if at all. His version of “affordable living” seems rooted in deregulation, not the strong tenant protections many low-income New Yorkers need.
Bottom line: Mamdani is the only candidate with a direct commitment to capping rents and easing the housing crunch for tenants. Cuomo’s housing proposals are big on construction but short on immediate relief for people already struggling. And Sliwa’s approach largely empowers landlords under the banner of making housing “affordable.” For renters and working families, Mamdani’s plan is by far the most aggressive at protecting homes and slowing rent hikes.
Living Wages and Workers’ Rights
Zohran Mamdani: Wages, like rent, are too low for NYC. Mamdani has made a $30/hour minimum wage by 2030 the centerpiece of his campaign. That means stepping the current $16.50 wage up dramatically in stages: roughly $20 by 2027, $27 by 2029, reaching $30 by 2030, then indexing to inflation. He argues this is what working families need to afford rent and groceries here. His plan would also phase in the wage across all businesses (with a bit more time for very small shops) and automatically bump it with cost-of-living thereafter. Mamdani champions workers’ power – he’s backed by big unions like SEIU 32BJ and hotel workers – and he promises to strengthen collective bargaining, raise union standards, and rein in gig companies like delivery apps that often pay poverty wages. He even carried legislation to give city workers paid sick leave and protect delivery workers. In short, he’s framed wage increases and labor rights as crucial to survival in the city.
Andrew Cuomo: In the Democratic primary, Cuomo largely avoided mass wage promises – he leaned on his record raising the state minimum to $15 as governor. But after losing, he rolled out an ambitious $20/hour minimum wage by 2027 plan and won endorsements from some large unions (like the Retail, Wholesale & Dept. Store Union and transit unions). On paper this sounds competitive, and it shows Cuomo can move on wages when under pressure. He also touts record corporate tax hikes from his governorship as proof he can tax the rich instead of workers. Still, Cuomo’s plan waters down with favors to business: he pairs the wage hike with tax credits for small employers so they aren’t hit as hard. He’s also talked up workforce training and grants to spur job growth, though many details are vague. Crucially, Cuomo is openly campaigning on raising incomes (at least partly) with business-backed measures – essentially a middle-of-the-road approach. It’s better than nothing, but it begs the question: if he wanted to raise wages, why didn’t he do it as governor? As a candidate, he’s adding wage hikes, but his record shows he tends to strike compromises with employers rather than taking on them outright.
Curtis Sliwa: Sliwa offers almost nothing concrete on wages. His emphasis is on economic growth through tax cuts and deregulation, not on boosting pay. He wants to reduce corporate and business taxes to attract investment, but he does not support raising the minimum wage or expanding labor protections. In fact, his rhetoric on “restoring affordability” hinges on lowering costs for businesses and property owners – again, trickle-down theory. The only nod to working people is talk of “quality of life” programs and free-market solutions, not guaranteed wage increases. He does not have a progressive labor agenda, nor has he sought union endorsements (he’s instead embraced GOP leaders and conservative donors). On workers’ rights, Sliwa focuses on small business help, leaving workers to fend for higher pay on their own. In practice, his plan would likely keep the city at the low end of the wage scale, trusting in market “incentives” rather than legislating a living wage.
Bottom line: Both Mamdani and Cuomo have made headline-grabbing wage promises, but only Mamdani’s is truly transformative for the working class ($30 by 2030 vs. Cuomo’s $20 by 2027). The difference is also in detail: Mamdani is proposing to fight for every dollar for workers and index wages to inflation, whereas Cuomo attaches significant tax breaks for businesses. Sliwa, by contrast, offers workers no real gain – only a pitch of pro-business “growth.” For workers, Mamdani’s plan is bold and systemic, Cuomo’s is an incremental nod to labor (with conditions), and Sliwa’s is a non-starter.
Transit and Public Services
Zohran Mamdani: Transportation is a daily cost for working New Yorkers, and Mamdani has made fare-free city buses a pillar of his transit plan. He successfully led the push for an initial fare-free bus pilot in state government; as mayor he’d extend that to all buses, coupled with faster bus lanes and priority signals so rides are quicker. Free buses would immediately put money back in riders’ pockets and improve service for outer-borough workers. He also supports expanding the Fair Fares program (already giving discounts to low-income residents). Mamdani doesn’t claim he can make the subway totally free (that requires Albany’s cooperation), but he wants New York to take control of the MTA, bringing subways and buses under City Hall so improvements are not hostage to state politics. His vision is a transit system owned by the people, not private financiers – and a city committed to “world-class public transit” as a utility.
Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo’s transit pitch is framed as expertise: having “revamped airports and subways” as governor, he now proposes to transfer the MTA to city control so New York can make its own decisions. He also talks about maintaining and expanding discounted Fair Fares for low-income riders, and once mentioned the idea of a few free bus or local routes. But he stops short of promising fare-free transit outright. His transportation plan tends to emphasize rebuilding infrastructure – more bridge and road projects – with some nods to modernizing transit tech. On safety, he’s calling for more NYPD presence in subways and cracking down on fare evasion (overlap with his policing platform). In effect, Cuomo paints himself as someone who can fix transit by bringing in business planning and state experience, but he relies on the same revenue sources (tolls, taxes) and doesn’t identify a big new funding stream. His proposals could benefit riders (especially more support for Fair Fares), but they lack the radical cost-cutting vision workers crave. And remember: as governor he frequently fought with NYC over transit issues, so it’s hard to trust him to actually give up state control without a fight.
Curtis Sliwa: The idea of public transit as a lifeline for workers barely shows up in Sliwa’s platform. His focus is almost entirely on crime and disorder on trains and buses. He pledges to beef up police – thousands more transit cops and undercover officers – and to crack down on fare-beaters with aggressive enforcement. His transit plan is essentially a security plan: more patrols, better lighting and cameras, even reviewing homeless outreach programs and punishing station “loitering.” Sliwa explicitly says he opposes any move toward fare-free rides; in fact, he’s vowed to defend the NYPD’s role in subways and ensure violators pay fares to deter crime. While safety is important, his approach offers no relief to a subway-riding worker on a tight budget. There is no plan to expand service, invest in new trains, or reduce costs – only to demand more policing and fines. This won’t win any popularity among the low-income transit riders, who want cheaper and faster commutes rather than a police escort on every train.
Bottom line: Mamdani is the only candidate putting forward truly accessible transit for working people: free or discounted rides and service improvements. Cuomo is promising to open an office line on funding and control, but falls short of real fare relief. Sliwa essentially ignores commuters’ financial burdens, focusing on policing instead. In the struggle for affordable transit, Mamdani’s platform most clearly sides with riders; the others do not.
Healthcare and Public Health
Zohran Mamdani: While housing and transit grab headlines, Mamdani sees healthcare as an essential need. His campaign rhetoric talks about healthcare as a right, though the campaign site only broadly lists “Healthcare” under issues without full details. We do know Mamdani helped pass laws for a public option insurance and has pushed for stronger local healthcare access. As mayor he has promised to expand community health centers and make sure city agencies connect people to care. He also supports a city watchdog to protect patient data and has backed mental health programs (e.g. social workers in schools). Importantly, Mamdani would back state-level proposals like single-payer or Medicare-for-All, and he wants to lower prescription drug costs. His approach is holistic: better preventive care, more low-cost clinics, and making sure health isn't a bailout burden on working families. He’d also likely extend the successful NYC Care program that helps uninsured New Yorkers.
Andrew Cuomo: Healthcare features more heavily in Cuomo’s “issues” site. He promises to ensure all New Yorkers can access primary and specialty care, especially by building on Health + Hospitals and linking with community clinics. He talks about bringing services into schools and public housing, and tackling disparities in maternal and chronic care. Essentially, Cuomo frames health as a city responsibility – at least on paper. As governor he actually expanded Medicaid and created Health + Hospitals programs, so he has some record here. However, his plans depend on cooperation with the state and largely play within the existing system. He has not said anything about universal single-payer at the city level, nor has he pushed bold new funding for city-run clinics beyond the usual expansions. It’s more of an incremental “improve what we have” stance – fine for middle-income concerns, but limited for someone who may struggle with unaffordable prescriptions or no coverage at all. He doesn’t propose reducing out-of-pocket costs citywide (for example, no talk of capping deductibles or drug prices locally) – a sign he’s not targeting the root of health inflation.
Curtis Sliwa: Healthcare is barely a blip on Sliwa’s radar. His platform is almost silent on expanding services or coverage. He does not propose free clinics or public hospital funding beyond maintaining the status quo. The only nod to health was on improving high schools and careers with training in health fields (part of an economic pitch). In practice, Sliwa would likely rely on the private sector and existing city hospitals, with no new programs for the uninsured or underinsured. There’s no promise of free care or major public health campaigns. In our city’s pandemic era, a mayor who doesn’t prioritize healthcare expansion and affordability is a mayor who leaves many working families vulnerable. Sliwa simply doesn’t position himself as a champion for patients or public health – his battle lines are drawn elsewhere.
Bottom line: Mamdani leans left on healthcare, aiming to expand clinics, keep costs down and treat health as a public right. Cuomo talks a good game about access and equity, but his solutions are largely tweaks to existing institutions rather than a bold overhaul. Sliwa offers nothing for health costs. For working people who might skip the doctor because of cost, only a Mamdani-style approach would feel truly meaningful.
Education Equity and Family Support
Zohran Mamdani: Education and childcare are woven throughout Mamdani’s agenda for affordability. He proposes free quality childcare for all New Yorkers up to age 5. This would be a lifeline for working parents (mothers in particular), saving families thousands and allowing parents to stay in their jobs. Mamdani also pledges to raise childcare workers’ pay to on par with public school teachers – a rare commitment to improve wages in that sector. For public schools, he backs fully funding city schools, reducing class sizes, and greening school buildings for health. He stands for free public college tuition as well (like many democratic socialists). Overall, his vision is to make raising a family affordable by investing in early education and supporting public K–12 schools so they don’t leave low-income neighborhoods behind.
Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo’s education platform includes universal 3-K for all three-year-olds and more after-school programs, expanding what was started under de Blasio. He also promises to shrink class sizes by securing state funds, strengthen community schools (with health centers on site), and beef up vocational training for students who want good-paying jobs without college. As governor he also pushed pre-K expansion citywide. These proposals would help working-class families by making it cheaper to send kids to school and by improving school quality. However, Cuomo also embraces tech solutions and stronger accountability – things like better testing, which progressives tend to question. He doesn’t advocate for universal free school lunch or abortion rights education (unlike some progressives) and supports school surveillance cameras for safety. In short, Cuomo’s plan shores up schools in a traditional way but with a mixed record: he did push public education funding broadly, but he also allowed charter schools to expand. His vision isn’t radical – it’s mostly an incremental continuation of past policies.
Curtis Sliwa: Education is a platform point for Sliwa, but again he approaches it from a law-and-order/business angle. He calls for keeping mayoral control of schools and cracking down on bureaucracy, arguing for audits and an inspector general to cut waste. He strongly supports gifted programs and preserving the SHSAT exam for specialized high schools – moves aimed at helping “hardworking” kids get ahead. He also wants more vocational schools and career training (in trades, tech, etc.), which can help working-class students. However, Sliwa’s plan leans heavily toward charter schools and competition: he would lift the cap on charters and encourage co-locating them in public school buildings. He frames this as choice and innovation, but it often comes at the expense of fully funding regular neighborhood schools. Teacher pay is mentioned only in passing (he suggests audits and reallocation). Overall, Sliwa’s “education reform” looks like a mix of expanded charter access, stricter discipline measures (like more school safety agents), and market-driven ideas – none of which address the root poverty that makes equitable education impossible. For a working parent, his plan promises some vocational options but also continues the divisive charter agenda rather than nurturing all kids.
Bottom line: On schools and childcare, Mamdani champions public solutions that cut family costs (free daycare and green, well-funded schools). Cuomo builds on existing programs (universal 3-K, class-size reduction) with moderate improvements. Sliwa, meanwhile, doubles down on charters, school policing, and bureaucracy cuts – which are unlikely to directly benefit working families in need. If education equity matters, the choice is clear: Mamdani’s approach puts families first, Cuomo’s is cautious and piecemeal, and Sliwa’s is mostly about shifting money toward private school options.
The Bottom Line for Working New Yorkers
Working people in New York City need real solutions to the crises of housing, wages, transit, healthcare and education. Zohran Mamdani’s platform consistently centers the working class. He talks about our struggles – the families juggling sky-high rents, childcare bills, and taking overcrowded buses. His promises, if achieved, would materially improve daily life: keeping roofs over heads with a rent freeze, putting more in workers’ paychecks with a living minimum wage, making commutes free, and ensuring no parent has to choose between a paycheck and childcare. Mamdani ties these policies to concrete actions (e.g. passing laws in City Hall, using city land for housing, raising union pay scales), even as he admits it will require bold fights with Albany and City Hall. To many progressives, he offers a vision of an NYC that steps up for working people – a city that finally lives up to its pro-worker rhetoric.
In contrast, Andrew Cuomo’s pitch is more mixed. He’s packaged some helpful ideas (like higher wages and more housing) but filters them through a centrist lens. He wants to shake up taxes on the wealthy and extend some working-class programs (building housing, some childcare expansion), yet he’s also relying on incentives for developers and tax breaks for businesses. His track record as governor makes working-class voters skeptical: thousands lost housing vouchers on his watch, while corporate tax breaks piled up. Now as a candidate he courts unions and even endorses a higher minimum wage – but he always couples it with pro-business adjustments. Cuomo talks about affordability and fairness, but often in very Washington-speak, and without the promise of revolutionary change. Workers hear that and worry: is this really for us, or just another election play?
Curtis Sliwa, meanwhile, offers practically nothing new for working families. His campaign is fixated on law-and-order issues, critiquing other candidates or symbolic fixes like raising cats for rat control. On the bread-and-butter issues of cost of living, he falls back on slogans. He claims to care about working people, but his policies would mainly lighten the load on landlords, big businesses, and property owners. He wants to make it “easier” to build or fix housing for owners, not to make rent cheaper for tenants. He calls for more policing in every corner of the city, even in subways, rather than addressing why so many New Yorkers lack shelter in the first place. On jobs, he’s all incentives and tax cuts, not labor rights. In the end, Sliwa’s vision of “affordability” looks a lot like the old trickle-down playbook. For someone who believes in justice and solidarity, Sliwa’s proposals feel like a betrayal of working people’s needs.
From a progressive, working-class standpoint, the choice is pretty stark. Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy challenges the status quo: he wants to use the power of City Hall to directly reduce costs for regular New Yorkers, even if it means confronting billionaires and disrupters. The other two candidates largely accept the current system – Cuomo tries to manage and improve it, Sliwa nearly celebrates it. If we believe our city government should work for the many and not just the few, then Mamdani stands out as the only one promising true relief. He isn’t making pie-in-the-sky claims; he’s outlining a roadmap to fight for what working families have been asking for for years.
As voters think about this election, progressive voices must ask: who is on the side of affordability, equity and justice? Only Mamdani’s platform explicitly tackles the guts of the affordability crisis. The others, at best, offer bandaids and business-as-usual solutions. For those who want a mayor fighting to keep New York City affordable and fair for working people, that makes the choice clear. In this race, the working class needs its own champion – and that champion is Zohran Mamdani.