If one were to believe the sensational narratives appearing in the city’s tabloids, the atmosphere along Billionaire’s Row on the eve of a potential Zohran Mamdani mayoralty resembles scenes of chaotic departure reminiscent of Saigon in 1975. The metaphor captures a vivid sense of panic among the ultra-wealthy—an image of financiers and property moguls scrambling to secure seats on metaphorical flights to more comfortable refuges like Palm Beach. Beneath this colorful exaggeration, however, lies a real anxiety: New York City’s most affluent business magnates and power brokers are deeply uneasy about the implications of Mamdani’s unapologetically socialist agenda. His campaign rhetoric, which emphasizes equity, social responsibility, and redistribution, challenges many long-held assumptions about how prosperity and governance should coexist in the city.

Yet the situation, as Yasser Salem—a former McKinsey executive and strategist currently assembling a business advisory council for Mamdani—explains, is far more nuanced than such alarmist headlines would suggest. Salem, who chairs OneNYC, a pro-Mamdani political action committee, acknowledges that the mere invocation of the term “socialism” can elicit discomfort in executive circles conditioned to equate it with economic instability or excessive government intervention. Still, through numerous conversations with industry leaders, he has observed unexpected areas of alignment between Mamdani’s vision and the pragmatic interests of business. Over time, figures once skeptical, including influential financiers such as Jamie Dimon, have moderated their public tone after engaging more directly with the candidate and examining his proposals beyond political shorthand.

In his discussions with more than seventy chief executives, Salem found distinct points of consensus emerging around specific platform elements—particularly policies concerning universal childcare. Many business leaders, he told *Business Insider*, recognize that ensuring affordable childcare is not merely a social good but a direct investment in workforce stability and productivity. Citing recurring sentiments from these executives, he noted that free or subsidized childcare can significantly alleviate the personal and financial stress that burdens employees, allowing them to concentrate more effectively on their work. While consensus has not come instantaneously, the growing affordability crisis in New York City—where the typical family spends more than a quarter of its income on the care of a single child—has made such concerns increasingly impossible to ignore. Salem’s organization has proposed hybrid public–private models to finance these initiatives, suggesting frameworks in which both government agencies and employers contribute. Such arrangements, he emphasized, have garnered “widespread support” among even traditionally cautious members of the corporate community.

Nevertheless, points of contention persist, especially around two deeply sensitive areas: public safety and housing policy. The apprehensions of business leaders are predictable yet sincere—they fear that Mamdani’s approach to policing could compromise urban security, while his interventions in the housing market might intensify rather than alleviate the city’s chronic shortages. Yet even within these debates, Salem identifies glimmers of cooperation. For example, although landlords and investors remain wary of Mamdani’s proposal to freeze rents for tenants in rent-stabilized apartments, they agree with his longer-term emphasis on increasing the housing supply. Critics recall that earlier rent freezes under Mayor de Blasio offered short-term relief but failed to address structural issues, suggesting that sustainable reform must come from new construction and zoning flexibility rather than price controls alone. Herein lies a philosophical divergence of timing: Mamdani’s immediate measures aim to ease household pressures and deliver quick political results, whereas business leaders prioritize long-term market-based solutions that expand inventory gradually. As Salem succinctly articulates, policymakers must decide whether they are “solving for rent prices going down today” or planning for stable affordability over a span of years—because the mechanisms to accomplish each differ profoundly.

The discussion on public safety exhibits a similar pattern of initial skepticism tempered by cautiously growing confidence. When Mamdani announced his intention to retain Jessica Tisch as commissioner of the New York Police Department, many within the business elite interpreted the move as a reassuring sign of continuity and pragmatism. It suggested that his administration would not pursue drastic, destabilizing reforms likely to imperil public order. Even so, executives sought clarification on Mamdani’s proposed Department of Community Safety, an initiative that envisions civilian-led teams—specifically trained mental health professionals—working alongside traditional law enforcement to respond to certain crisis calls, particularly in the subway system and high-stress commercial areas. Some entrepreneurs, such as the owner of a McDonald’s franchise in a challenging neighborhood, wondered whether such changes might inadvertently weaken protective response times. Salem clarified that the new civilian responders would complement, rather than replace, police officers, reinforcing the city’s resilience instead of undermining it.

Interestingly, Salem noted that taxation—a perennial flashpoint in discussions between government and business—has not dominated these private dialogues. Many executives, he reports, are open to paying somewhat higher taxes if they can be convinced that such contributions tangibly improve the livability and overall attractiveness of New York as a global metropolis. For them, quality of life, safety, and social stability ultimately serve as the infrastructure upon which commerce depends.

Moreover, Mamdani’s decision to retain Tisch symbolically assuaged other, less tangible forms of apprehension among the corporate class: doubts surrounding his managerial experience, ideological rigidity, or perceived alignment with provocative international causes. In selecting a figure with deep institutional experience, despite opposition from his most fervent progressive base, Mamdani demonstrated a willingness to balance idealism with administrative competence—a gesture business leaders read as evidence of maturing political judgment.

As for Salem himself, he distances his own philosophy from doctrinaire socialism, describing his orientation instead as “pro–responsible capitalism.” His advocacy focuses on encouraging CEOs to assess Mamdani’s policies on their practical implications rather than reacting reflexively to ideological labels. He stresses that reinforcing New York’s social safety net does not equate to confiscating private wealth or imposing punitive taxation. “He’s not proposing,” Salem reassures them, “to transform corporate tax rates from twenty-five percent to seventy-five.” Rather, Mamdani’s approach seeks to extend opportunity and security without dismantling the foundations of enterprise. It is within this evolving dialogue—between visionaries and pragmatists, progressives and capitalists—that a new understanding of civic partnership in New York City may well be taking root.

Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/where-ceos-may-agree-with-zohran-mamdani-agenda-2025-11