November, 22 2020, 11:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Media contacts (general):
Bob Keener, (617) 610-6766, bobk@ips-dc.org
Chuck Collins, (617) 308-4433, chuck@ips-dc.org
Olivia Alperstein, (202) 704-9011, olivia@ips-dc.org
Media contact (workers):
Sara Myklebust, (520) 982-0387, Sara.Myklebust@georgetown.edu
United for Respect, press@united4respect.org
New Report Finds that a "Delinquent Dozen" Pandemic Profiteers Failed Essential Workers and Forced Them to Risk Their Health, While Still Profiting Immensely
Owners and CEOs of Retail Giants Studied Include Amazon, Target and Walmart
WASHINGTON
A new report finds that the pandemic has been a cash cow for billionaires while essential workers went underpaid, unsupported and forced to risk their health at corporations owned or operated by billionaires.
As the total wealth of America's billionaires rose by almost $1 trillion under the COVID-19 pandemic, the report, "Billionaire Wealth vs. Community Health," looked at a "Delinquent Dozen" companies that have vastly increased fortunes for their owners and CEOs but provided inadequate protection for their workers. This week retailers are expecting a surge in revenue due to their heavy promotion of Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales. The report was published by Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), United for Respect and Bargaining for the Common Good Network.
An analysis of billionaire wealth by IPS found that 647 U.S. billionaires gained $960 billion in wealth between March 18, 2020 and November 17, 2020. There are 33 new billionaires since mid-March.
The corporations scrutinized in the report include: Walmart, Amazon, Instacart, Tyson Foods, and Target. The report also studied private equity and investment firms, including Blackrock, Blackstone, KKR, Cerberus Capital, BC Partners and Leonard Green Partners.
Ten of the billionaire owners of seven of these Delinquent Dozen Companies have a combined wealth of $433 billion. Since March 18, 2020, their combined personal wealth has increased $127.5 billion, an increase of 42 percent. These ten billionaires are Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Alice, Rob and Jim Walton (Walmart), Apoorva Mehta (Instacart), John Tyson (Tyson Foods), Steve Schwarzman (Blackstone), Henry Kravis and George Roberts (KKR), and Steve Feinberg (Cerberus). The report authors portray these billionaires and their companies as emblematic of corporate greed that has grown rampant over the last 40 years.
Key findings of the report include:
The wealth of Amazon's Jeff Bezos has increased $70.7 billion since mid-March while an estimated 20,000 workers have been infected.
John H. Tyson, the billionaire owner of Tyson Foods, has seen his personal wealth increase over $635 million since the beginning of the pandemic as an estimated 11,000 Tyson workers have been infected.
Three owners of Walmart, Rob, Jim and Alice Walton, have seen their combined personal wealth increase over $48 billion since the beginning of the pandemic, about 30 percent increase. In 2018, Walmart's CEO Doug McMillion made 1,118 times the pay of Walmart's median worker. Yet Walmart refuses to provide hazard pay to its workers.
Instacart's profits have surged during the pandemic thanks to its essential workers on the frontlines of retail shopping for secluding customers. CEO founder Apoorva Mehta became an instant billionaire in June and is now worth $1.6 billion. He will see his wealth multiply when the company goes public in early 2021. Its current valuation is $30 billion, yet Instacart has over-hired 300,000 new workers and failed to provide sufficient protections.
Target CEO Brian Cornell is paid 821 times the median worker and his company has enjoyed a protected status as its competition was shut down during the pandemic as nonessential. The company enacted an already promised $2 increase in its starting wage but also cut the pay of its Target-owned Shipt delivery workers. Target could do more to protect its frontline employees.
The report also found that the owners of certain private equity firms have seen their fortunes surge. The report points out that private equity has moved into essential services such as health care, grocery provision and pet supply. And the report authors say that the business model of extreme cost cutting and debt loading in order to squeeze profits out of already profitable companies is fundamentally incompatible with the needs of protecting workers and communities during a pandemic. The report found that:
Leonard Green Partners acquired Prospect Medical Holdings, a major owner of hospitals. Investigations of Prospect Medical have found poor infection control and maintenance at its facilities. Workers at Prospect have been pressing for better infection protections, hazard pay, and safer working conditions. Over the last several years, Leonard Green saddled Prospect Medical with debt while paying dividends to shareholders and drawing scrutiny from Congress.
Private equity giant Blackstone owns TeamHealth, a company that early in the pandemic demoted a whistleblower doctor who went public about the company's lack of Covid-19 safety precautions and aggressive cost-cutting. Blackstone has saddled TeamHealth with debt and cost-cutting during the pandemic, resulting in a major downgrade of the company's bond rating. Blackstone founder and CEO Steve Schwartzman has seen his personal wealth increase $4.1 billion since the beginning of the pandemic.
Cerberus Capital owns a number of companies with frontline essential workers including Albertsons and Safeway supermarkets and the recently sold Steward Health Care. Steve Feinberg, the billionaire cofounder of the private equity firm has seen his personal wealth increase $276 million since the beginning of the pandemic. In June, Cerberus sold its primary stake in Steward Health to its doctors. But prior to the sale, they drew fire early in the pandemic by shutting down intensive care units in rural Massachusetts and failing to provide insufficient PPE equipment. Safeway markets had initial hazard pay that ended in June. Since then, Covid infections have increased 161 percent in Safeway stores.
The Dollar Stores, including Dollar General and Dollar Tree (owner of Family Dollar), have seen enormous profits during the pandemic. The investment services giant BlackRock has a large ownership stake in both companies. Dollar Tree CEO Gary Philbin is paid 690 times his median paid worker. Dollar General CEO Todd Vasos is paid 824 times their median paid worker. Understaffed stores and skimpy security pose one of many risks to workers during the pandemic, with an increase in assaults and even death when Dollar Store workers were attacked for asking a customer to wear a mask.
The two biggest pet supply retailers are both owned by private equity firms. PetSmart, owned by the UK-based BC Partners, and PetCo, owned by CVC Capital Partners, benefitted from the designations as essential businesses early in the pandemic, resulting in surging sales. That didn't stop PetSmart from furloughing and then permanently terminating workers across the U.S., causing them to lose health insurance and incomes. BC Capital leveraged PetSmart with debt, bought Chewy, and is now in the process of re-separating the companies to extract additional wealth. CVC Partners just announced it is looking to take PetCo public with a valuation of $6 billion, even with worker reports of serious health and safety issues.
Kenya Slaughter, an employee of Dollar General, owned in part by BlackRock, said, "I close the register many nights, so I know my store's revenue has practically doubled since the coronavirus hit. But we workers haven't gotten any extra money, even though we're risking our health, and our families' health, to keep the stores running."
"While Amazon's Jeff Bezos is on track to become the world's first trillionaire, the frontline workers like me who've built his fortune are treated like we're disposable," said Courtenay Brown, an Amazon Fresh warehouse worker in New Jersey and leader with United for Respect. "As the virus spikes, we get more and more orders, and Amazon expects us to work at inhumane rates. The pace is blistering and people get injured on the job a lot, people get sick, people are scared of catching COVID, and Amazon is not doing enough to protect our lives. It's time for Amazon's workers to get some actual compensation for the essential work we're doing -- we don't need feel-good TV commercials thanking us for being heroes, we need $5 an hour in hazard pay, paid sick leave, and workplace protections from this dangerous virus."
"Our communities are suffering. We've lost jobs, homes, loved ones and nearly 250,000 people in this country. This pandemic has underscored how our inequitable, racist system works," said Stephen Lerner, Senior Fellow, Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor, Georgetown University, and focused on Bargaining for the Common Good Network. "Essential workers keep going to work because they don't have any other choice. The executives of these companies, who are multi-millionaires and billionaires already, enrich themselves and their companies, profiting enormously while their workers suffer and die. It's time to protect workers and our communities and end a system that lets workers die while the billionaires get richer," he said.
"I have gone from making a reasonable income to questioning my ability to put food on the table, all while Instacart rolls out more and more public statements to fool consumers," said Shenaya Birkel, an Instacart employee. "While our economy is at risk due to quarantine, Instacart is cashing in more than ever. They had a huge opportunity to prove they care about the essential workers who do what their corporate employees would never do: shop in stores with COVID-19 floating around everywhere. Instead, they refused to offer hazard pay, over-hired, and actually decreased pay. It's time we get treated according to the risk we are facing every day," she said.
"These billionaire owners are like military generals sitting in protected bubbles sending their workers into the viral line of fire with insufficient shields," said Chuck Collins from the Institute for Policy Studies and co-author of the report along with an earlier IPS report, Billionaire Bonanza 2020. "It is sordid and unseemly for some to reap such rewards when millions risk their lives, their long-term health, and their livelihoods."
Charlene Haley, an employee of Safeway, which is owned by Cerberus Capital, said, "I go to work every day wondering if I am going to become infected, and my co-workers and I will continue to be at risk until a vaccine is widely available. We should receive hazard pay for as long as the hazard exists."
To address pandemic profiteering, the report proposes three sets of recommendations:1) for companies employing essential workers, 2) for lawmakers to protect essential workers, and 3) for lawmakers to reduce the concentration of wealth and power of billionaires and the corporations they own. Key recommendations include:
Corporations employing essential workers should:
Immediately implement hazard pay of at least $5 per hour
Provide substantial paid sick leave benefits for workers to stay home when ill, quarantine when exposed, and care for sick loved ones, as well as paid bereavement leave for those who have had family members die from COVID-19
Provide, regularly replace, and upgrade high quality personal protective equipment (PPE) at no cost to all their essential workers
Establish workplace health councils to enable workers to actively participate in monitoring workplace conditions
Public policies needed to protect essential workers:
Establish a Presidential Commission on Essential Workers with on-the-ground, diverse worker representation.
Pass Essential Workers' Bills of Rights developed in collaboration with workers' organizations at local, state and federal levels.
Legislate the creation of workplace health councils so workers can monitor and participate in the enforcement of compliance with health and safety regulations and guidance.
Policies needed to target the pandemic profiteering of millionaires, billionaires and exploitative businesses such as private equity firms, include:
Levy an Emergency Pandemic Wealth Tax on billionaires to raise $450 billion and fund protections for essential workers.
Establish a Pandemic Profiteering Oversight Committee that goes beyond oversight of stimulus funds.
Institute conditions on corporations receiving federal pandemic financial support, including the requirement to retain workers, preserve workers rights, and institute policies and procedures to protect workers from exposure to the virus.
Pass the Stop Wall Street Looting Act (SWSLA) including elimination of the "carried interest" loophole that enables private equity and hedge fund billionaires to pay lower tax rates.
IPS published additional recommendations to reduce extreme wealth and power in its April report, Billionaire Bonanza 2020: Wealth Windfalls, Tumbling Taxes and Pandemic Profiteers.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


