Is Abundance Elitist?

It's a growing movement, not a static one

A new take on Abundance comes in the form of Abundance for Whom, which argues that Abundance is elitist, advocates for solutions that only help urbanists and the highly educated. While Jennifer Hernandez's 'Abundance for Whom' raises important questions about the scope of the Abundance movement, the assertion that Abundance is inherently elitist is a mischaracterization. I argue that while the movement's initial focus may appear urban-centric due to the experiences of the first set of supporters, its core principles aim for broader inclusivity and that perceived gaps are opportunities for expansion, not proof of exclusionary design. This incompleteness, at least at this point, that’s a feature, not a flaw, as it does need input. Unfortunately, Jennifer isn’t offering any of those details.

There is a need to confront this argument of elitism. It’s popular to use this label these days, but what does it really mean? To be elite, means to be part of a select group. There’s many ways to be elite. There are some common ways that people mean most when they use the term; wealth, power, skills; but the way it’s being used is becoming more and more broad, and the way Jennifer Hernandez uses it is an example, in labeling being an urbanist as elitist.

Urban areas are elite in many ways, this is true. What really causes urban areas to be elite? It’s not some intrinsic quality of being in a city that transforms its residents into elites. It’s a consequence that the cost of living in a city is high, and so you need an “elite” amount of money to enter, which tends to by association bring many other categories of being elite. Is Abundance arguing for making this cost of living higher? No, quite the opposite.

A second item, is there really a zero-sum contest between suburbanites, exurbanites, rural and urbanists? There’s this other presumption that there’s a group of people who want to live in suburbs that aren’t having their needs met. The critique here isn’t that there are no needs in the suburbs, but in the presumption that urbanists are in contest with this. Urbanists come into contention with some suburbs. They are surrounded by suburbs, so if they want to expand, they’ll come into contention. I should probably point out here that “expansion” here doesn’t mean incorporation, and it’s not even about any hard lines on a map. It’s about a transition from one type of environment to another. Suburbs expand all the time, taking up farmland or other previously rural land. Urban environments should be able to do the same.

But when you expand urban environments, you need a fraction of the suburban space. If anyone’s image of urbanists' vision is that all suburban land will be filled by skyscrapers, well, they must assume there will be 100 times more people. Luckily that’s not the challenge we have. It’s more like 10% not 10,000%.

Here’s the other ironic aspect, the argument Jennifer makes is that urban elites aren’t in connection with what non-elites want. But what is “elite” about an urban environment is that there’s more demand than supply. Urban YIMBYs, they just want to fix that supply issue so that people aren’t excluded from living in cities. In other words, they want to make urban living less elite.

There are issues that urban and suburban residents will come into conflict over, but that does not mean the urbanists are pursuing an elitist agenda. It also does not mean this is zero-sum. For example, Jennifer says we need, “all of the above strategies that create much more housing, both in and outside the urban core”. Abundance principles inherently support building diverse housing solutions wherever needed, including increasing supply outside the traditional urban core, if that’s what’s needed.

There is, though, knowledge that every sq ft. of higher density space we allow ourselves to build in urban areas, it intrinsically reduces the demand for the buildings outside the urban core. Presumably the people who move into this space desired it. They were different from those that stayed in the suburban environment, who either desired it less, or not at all. Every person who makes that choice to live in a dense urban environment is in effect doing those with suburbanists preferences a favor, by reducing freeing up space in the suburbs. We’re not the enemy, we’re the solution (at least a part of it). Ultimately, each preference is met in this arrangement. The status quo is the one that leaves insufficient supply to meet the demand for urban housing.

Jennifer makes a segue from housing to energy, arguing for more natural gas and petroleum fuels. There’s no reason these should be connected. In reality, there’s no difference between an urban electron and suburban electron, and they could come from any source. In addition, there’s plenty of natural gas and petroleum fuel usage today. Energy Abundance is about providing better sources that will be cheaper, cleaner and more abundant. It’s a very odd critique to aim at an approach that quietly advocates for replacing fossil fuels by being better and cheaper, rather than regulation. The Abundance approach presumes a market driven change, and that is inherently an approach that manages the consumer side of a transition.

I don’t know what Jennifer expects here. To be pro fossil fuel? That’s asking too much. Fossil fuels should have always been paying for their true costs. But as far as Abundance the book goes, it’s somewhat nuclear optimistic, and presumes natural gas and gasoline will be outcompeted, not regulated out.

Myself, I’m less nuclear optimistic. I have little belief that it will compete well with renewables, and I know enough about grids and the many overlapping options to know that nuclear is not necessary. If it surprises me, I won’t be disappointed, but most nuclear proponents, like the Breakthrough Institute, use some poor critiques of renewables to try and create a niche they plan to fill, and then fail to explain how the high costs and 5+ year construction times are compatible with rapidly changing our generating capacity. Like nuclear fusion is always 20 years away, affordable nuclear fission is always just another 10 years and another set of massive subsidies away. Renewables on the other hand have delivered consistent drops in price, have scaled up, and show every trendline of heading toward exactly what we need from them.

That said, I’ve never been a big fan of using procedural systems to tie them up and take them down. When it comes to that, it’s generally because they successfully used procedural systems to avoid taking responsibility for their own costs or sabotage renewable energy. It’s a dirty game, but to be honest, they started it.

Elite can be a statement of fact, and there should be nothing wrong with being elite. Depending on the category, it should be celebrated. Elitist, though, is different, especially the variety that pursues artificial scarcity. That’s not at all consistent with the ideas of Abundance. I think what Jennifer gets confused about here is that it feels like opening the door wider to what is currently considered elite is reinforcing the elite, since it’s growing. But that ignores the basic concept of what it means to be elite, and how it doesn’t need to be static.

Ultimately, labeling Abundance as 'elitist' misconstrues its fundamental goal: to create widespread prosperity and opportunity by overcoming artificial scarcity in housing, energy, and beyond. While the movement must actively work to broaden its examples and ensure its solutions resonate across diverse communities—urban, suburban, and rural—its core philosophy is one of inclusion. The challenge is not one of inherent elitism, but of ensuring the vision of Abundance is expansively applied and effectively communicated to all Americans, fostering collaboration rather than division.

While I appreciate the call to expand the specific policy set, the framing of it as elitist is ultimately unproductive to reaching those goals. Instead of inviting suburbanites, exurbanites and rural Americans into the conversation, it brings barriers that don’t need to exist, and reinforces a zero-sum mindset. Labeling it as elitist is unproductive at creating the engagement and inclusion of non-urbanist concerns as it drives away that group of voices.