

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The poverty wage business model that is so prevalent in Corporate America works spectacularly well for a handful of wealthy and politically powerful executives and shareholders. For the rest of us, not so much.
At least 16 US billionaires owe their wealth to one of America’s 20 largest low-wage employers—corporations where a significant share of workers earn so little they have to rely on public assistance.
Of these 16 billionaires, 8 are associated with Walmart. Amazon and Tyson Foods have two members of this elite club, while Home Depot, Best Buy, Starbucks, and Chipotle each have one.
For detailed data on wages and CEO pay at these and other leading low-wage corporations, see the recent Institute for Policy Studies report "America’s 20 Largest Low-Wage Employers and the Affordability Crisis." This article includes updated net worth data from the just-released Forbes 2026 Global Billionaires List.
Seven descendants of Walmart founder Sam Walton have accumulated their multi-billion-dollar fortunes off the backs of the giant retailer’s low-wage workers. His eldest son, Rob Walton, leads the pack, with $146 billion. Another billionaire, Drayton McLane, gained entry to this elite club by selling his grocery distribution business to Walmart for a significant share in the retailer.
When corporate resources are funneled into the pockets of those at the top while ordinary employees have to rely on public assistance, we are all subsidizing the executive mansions and private jets.
Median pay at Walmart, the largest US private sector employer, stood at $29,469 in 2024. That’s below the income limits for a family of three to qualify for Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food aid benefits. It’s nowhere near the $59,600 income level needed to afford the US average rent for a two-bedroom apartment.
In addition to median pay figures reported in corporate proxy statements, we gathered data from the small number of state governments that disclose corporations’ use of public assistance programs to subsidize their low wages.
In Nevada, Walmart had 4,574 employees, 29.3% of their employees in that state, enrolled in Medicaid in 2024. In four states (Colorado, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Michigan), Walmart had a total of 10,920 employees enrolled in the SNAP food aid program.
The media organization More Perfect Union points out that Walmart not only relies on SNAP to make up for the low wages they pay their workers, but they also benefit when people use food stamps to buy groceries in their stores. According to a Numerator survey covering the 12 months ending July 31, 2025, Walmart ranked No. 1 for SNAP benefit redemption, receiving nearly 26% of all SNAP dollars.
Since MacKenzie Scott received 4% of Amazon stock in her 2019 divorce settlement, the ecommerce goliath has had not one but two reps on the billionaire ranking. Scott has become a major philanthropist, but is still sitting on an estimated $28.6 billion. Her ex, Amazon founder and current Trump ally Jeff Bezos, came in fourth in the world in the Forbes list this year, with $224 billion.
Amazon’s typical employees are on another economic planet. Their median pay of $37,181 just barely exceeds the family-of-three income limits for Medicaid and SNAP. With half of Amazon employees earning less than that amount, a significant share of the company’s 1.2 million US employees no doubt have to rely on public assistance.
Indeed, the Nevada state government’s Medicaid report reveals that Amazon had 8,951 employees enrolled in that health program in that state in 2024, making up 48.4% of all of the firm’s employees in Nevada. In the four states that report SNAP enrollee data by employer, Amazon came in second after Walmart, with 9,633 employees receiving those benefits.
Home Depot co-founder and Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank holds an estimated $11.1 billion. His fellow co-founder, Bernard Marcus, died on election day in 2024, after donating $9.4 million to the campaigns of President Donald Trump and other Republicans.
While ranking among the country’s lowest-paying companies, Home Depot has had plenty money to blow on stock buybacks. This is a financial maneuver that artificially inflates the value of a company’s shares—and the stock holdings of wealthy executives and stockholders.
The big-box chain spent $37.9 billion on share repurchases between 2019 and 2024. That sum would have been enough to give each of Home Depot’s 419,600 US employees six annual $15,039 bonuses. Home Depot’s median pay in 2024 stood at just $35,196—less than the $35,631 income limit for a family of three to qualify for Medicaid.
State government data show that Home Depot employees had a total of 2,213 employees enrolled in SNAP food aid in Colorado, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Michigan.
Longtime Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has accumulated $3.5 billion in wealth off a company that paid its median earner just $14,674 in 2024. Employee discontent has sparked pro-union elections at more than 570 stores over the past four years. But the company has used various tactics to prevent workers from securing a first contract, including during a period when Schultz returned to his CEO post.
Schultz recently purchased a $44 million penthouse in Surfside, Florida, a state with zero personal income tax.
Taxing away excessive wealth could also encourage business models that share profits equitably with all employees.
Rounding out the low-wage billionaires list are the founders of Best Buy and Chipotle and two descendants of John Tyson, the founder of Tyson Foods, a meat processor with a sizeable immigrant workforce.
The poverty wage business model that is so prevalent in Corporate America works spectacularly well for a handful of wealthy and politically powerful executives and shareholders. For the rest of us, not so much.
When corporate resources are funneled into the pockets of those at the top while ordinary employees have to rely on public assistance, we are all subsidizing the executive mansions and private jets, the massive political spending, and all the other trappings of excessive wealth.
Lawmakers have introduced several tax proposals to curb the size of billionaire fortunes. Under current law, the ultra rich hold most of their wealth in stock and other financial assets that are not taxable until they are sold. In the meantime, they’re allowed to borrow against these assets to fund their lavish lifestyles and then pass their wealth on to heirs tax-free.
One federal bill to address that loophole, the Billionaires Income Tax Act, would impose an annual tax on billionaires’ gains from tradable assets like stocks, whether or not they sell the asset.
Several other proposals would tax billionaires’ accumulated wealth. For example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) are the lead advocates of the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, which would apply a 2% annual tax on the net worth of households and trusts between $50 million and $1 billion and a 3% tax on those with net worth above $1 billion.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) recently introduced a slightly different model that would establish a 5% annual wealth tax on billionaires. This proposal is similar to a California state ballot initiative for a 5% one-time wealth tax on billionaire residents of that state.
Each of these proposals would raise massive revenue for public investments. At the same time, taxing away excessive wealth could also encourage business models that share profits equitably with all employees instead of extracting from those at the bottom to make wealthy executives and shareholders even richer.
Despite this despicable year, those fighting for a more egalitarian world can find bright spots to build on.
Ooph. What a year. We were tempted to skip our annual tradition of tallying up top inequality victories and pretend like 2025 never happened.
Instead we decided that in dark times like these, lifting up signs of hope is more important than ever. In 2025, we found those signs outside Washington. In fact, federal-level tax giveaways for the rich and the gutting of public services and labor rights seem to have invigorated efforts to “Trump-proof” local economies and workplaces.
Hopefully we’ll continue to see innovative inequality-fighting solutions bubble up from the base to the national level in the coming years.
In 2025, we also saw remarkable pushback from the people against authoritarian and billionaire class forces bent on capturing our economy and our democracy. We saw this resistance by the millions in the streets, by the tens of thousands at “Fight the Oligarchy” rallies, by the hundreds at Tesla dealerships, and by brave individuals of conscience.
May the pushback continue to grow — and deliver many more wins — in 2026.
Zohran Mamdani’s ascent from a little-known Democratic Socialist Assemblymember to the Mayor-elect of New York City was one of the biggest inequality storylines of 2025.
Mamdani’s promises to make one of the most expensive cities in the world affordable captured a deep desire for egalitarian politics. His most popular proposals include freezing the rent for stabilized units and raising taxes on the rich and corporations to help pay for fast and free buses and expanded universal childcare.
Wall Street CEOs and other billionaires spent more than $40 million trying to defeat this agenda. On the other hand of the equation, Mamdani’s campaign was able to marshal tens of thousands of volunteers to knock on doors across the city. This success should be a model for people-powered anti-inequality efforts nationwide.
An underrated aspect of Mamdani’s successful mayoral campaign was the role that democracy-reform initiatives played in his victory. Mamdani was partially able to withstand the billionaire spending spree because New York City has an 8-to-1 small contribution match program that helps level the campaign spending field for average New Yorkers.
The ranked-choice format of the mayoral primary, which allows voters to list five candidates in preference order, also helped avoid splitting the progressive vote and built coalitions in real time.
Similar reforms aimed at curbing the influence of the wealthy on politics helped eke out a victory for Katie Wilson in Seattle’s mayor race this year as well. Since 2015, Seattle residents have received $100 in “Democracy Vouchers” to donate to local candidates. That boost to the election spending power of residents helped Wilson defeat an incumbent backed by a real estate industry PAC.
One of the biggest labor organizing stories of the 2020s — Starbucks baristas — continued to generate headlines in 2025. On “Red Cup Day,” November 13, members of Starbucks Workers United went on strike demanding that the coffee chain come to the table and negotiate a first contract. A little over a month later, the strike has now expanded to 130 cities and nearly 4,000 participating workers. To learn more about the last five years of Starbucks labor fights, check out our Q&A with founding organizer Jaz Brisack on their new book.
While the national Starbucks fight rages on, baristas in New York City notched a major win this year when the company agreed to pay out $38 million after the city’s labor and consumer agency found the coffee giant committed systemic violations of local scheduling laws. The payment is the largest single worker protection settlement in New York City history.
Mega-events tend to exacerbate inequality in host cities. In Atlanta, for example, tens of thousands of low-income residents were displaced by the demolition of public housing in the lead-up to the 1996 Olympics and the rapid gentrification that followed.
With the Olympics coming to Los Angeles, unions and other advocates are fighting to reverse this trend with demands for affordable housing investment and wage hikes. In May 2025, they won approval of an “Olympic Wage” for hotel and airport employees. By the time the games kick off in July 2028, the city’s minimum wage for these workers is scheduled to rise to $30 – the highest in the country.
In the face of efforts to water down the wage ordinance, unions countered with a ballot initiative to raise the minimum to $30 for all workers in the city.
The Utah legislature adopted one of the most restrictive labor laws in the country in February 2025. Less than a year later, those same lawmakers pulled a 180. Why the switcheroo? Sustained union protests and a ballot campaign to put the matter before voters had clearly given them the jitters.
The now-repealed Utah law banned collective bargaining rights for teachers, firefighters, and other state public employees. President Trump’s executive orders to do the same for more than 1 million federal workers are now also facing real opposition.
In rare bipartisan action, 20 House Republicans joined Democrats on December 11 to pass a bill to repeal Trump’s bargaining rights bans. Calling this a “seismic victory,” the American Federation of Government Employees is now demanding similar action in the Senate.
Despite rampant aggressive anti-union tactics, the labor movement notched some significant victories in 2025. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), for example, won a first-ever national contract with JBS, the world’s largest meat processor. The contract covers the company’s heavily immigrant workforce of 26,000 and includes wage increases, paid sick leave, and the first pension benefits offered by a meatpacking employer since 1986.
A recent National Nurses United win showed that victories in the deep red, anti-union south are possible. After a successful election in early December, the union now represents some 750 registered nurses in the St. Joseph Health hospital network in central Texas.
Seattle voters passed a ballot measure in February to tax excessive executive compensation to fund social housing. Corporations will now owe a 5 percent tax on any annual compensation for a Seattle-based executive that exceeds $1 million. The measure passed by a 26-point margin, despite a well-funded opposition campaign.
Seattle activist-economist John Burbank declared the vote a victory against “the oligarchs, Amazon, Microsoft, the local Chamber of Commerce, the real estate industry, the coup makers and backers, the Muskites, and the Trumpiphiles.”
In 2026, we’ll be closely following ballot initiatives in Los Angeles and San Francisco to increase taxes on companies with huge gaps between their CEO and worker pay.
Colorado voters passed a pair of ballot measures in November to fund a universal free school lunch program, paid for through a tax hike on households making more than $300,000 per year. The initiatives will benefit farmers by allocating dollars for purchasing locally grown food and increase cafeteria worker wages as well. “It’s a win-win-win,” writes author and TV host Sonali Kolhatkar.
As of November 1, all New Mexico families are eligible for universal, no-cost child care. Families will save an average of $12,000 per year — a true game-changer for low-income households in one of the country’s poorest states. The state is funding the program through taxes on oil and gas extraction from public lands.
“Taking care of our children and setting them up for success is the best thing we can do for our families, our communities, and our nation,” writes child care teacher Rita Bee.
As state governments feel the squeeze of federal funding cuts, progressive revenue raisers are gaining momentum. Maryland, for example, adopted a new 2 percent capital gains surtax on individuals with income above $350,000 and raised income tax rates on people making more than $500,000 per year.
A State Revenue Alliance report details other progressive tax wins in 2025, including property tax increases on high-value homes in Maine, Montana, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Illinois reforms will crack down on corporate offshore tax dodging, while Washington raised rates to make their state estate tax more progressive.
Our Institute for Policy Studies colleague Omar Ocampo has produced data dispelling the myth that state “tax the rich” reforms lead to an exodus of wealthy residents. In Massachusetts, for instance, the ultra-wealthy population has actually increased since the state introduced a four percent surtax on incomes above $1 million in 2023. Surtax revenue is now funding early learning and childcare programs and free school lunches and community college.
"I am not buying Starbucks and you should not either."
The mayors-elect in both Seattle and New York City are backing the nationwide strike by Starbucks baristas launched this week, calling on the people of their respective cities to honor the consumer boycott of the coffee giant running parallel to the strike so that workers can win their fight for better working conditions.
“Together, we can send a powerful message: No contract, no coffee,” Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist who will take control of the New York City's mayor office on January 1, declared in a social media post to his more than 1 million followers.
In Seattle, mayor-elect Katie Wilson, who on Thursday was declared the winner of the race in Seattle, where Starbucks was founded and where its corporate headquarters remains, joined the picket line with striking workers in her city on the very same day to show them her support.
"I am not buying Starbucks and you should not either,” Wilson told the crowd.
She also delivered a message directly to the corporate leadership of Starbucks. "This is your hometown and mine," she said. "Seattle's making some changes right now, and I urge you to do the right thing. Because in Seattle, when workers' rights are under attack, what do we do?" To which the crowd responded in a chant-style response: "Stand up! Fight back!"
Socialist Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson's first move after winning the election was to boycott Starbucks, a hometown company. pic.twitter.com/zPoNULxfuk
— Ari Hoffman 🎗 (@thehoffather) November 14, 2025
In his post, Mamdani said, "Starbucks workers across the country are on an Unfair Labor Practices strike, fighting for a fair contract," as he called for people everywhere to honor the picket line by not buying from the company.
At a rally with New York City workers outside a Starbucks location on Thursday, Mamdani referenced the massive disparity between profits and executive pay at the company compared to what the average barista makes.
Zohran Mamdani says that New York City stands with Starbucks employees!He points out their CEO made 96 billion last year. That’s 6,666 times the median Starbucks worker salary. Boycott Starbucks. Support the workers. Demand they receive a living wage.
[image or embed]
— Kelly (@broadwaybabyto.bsky.social) November 12, 2025 at 10:45 PM
The striking workers, said Mamdani, "are asking for a salary they can actually live off of. They are asking for hours they can actually build their life around. They are asking for the violations of labor law to finally be resolved. And they deserve a city that has their back and I am here to say that is what New York City will be."
"Today’s strike isn’t just about Starbucks. It's about a broken system where billionaires and CEOs keep getting richer while the politicians they bankroll gut our wages, healthcare, and rights."
The No Kings Alliance on Friday announced that it was mobilizing in support of Starbucks workers who went on strike this week to demand a fair contract.
The alliance, which organized one of the largest demonstrations in US history last month with nationwide "No Kings" protests against the President Donald Trump's administration, pledged solidarity with the striking workers, while highlighting the massive disparity in pay for Starbucks baristas and the company's CEO.
"Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol was paid $96 million for just 120 days of work in 2024, paying himself 6,666 times what the average barista made—the worst CEO-to-worker pay inequity in the country," said the alliance. "At the same time, Trump and his billionaire backers are doing their best to scare people out of speaking up for their rights on the job and in their communities."
"Don't cross the picket line," the alliance urged its supporters, while also encouraging them to sign the "No Contract, No Coffee" pledge, an online petition demanding that the company negotiate with Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) on a just contract.
"I call on you to bargain a fair contract with Starbucks Workers United baristas!" the pledge reads. "I support Starbucks baristas in their fight for a union and a fair contract, and pledge not to cross the picket line. That means I will not patronize any Starbucks store when baristas are on [unfair labor practices] strike."
The striking Starbucks workers also got a pledge of solidarity from the AFL-CIO, which on Thursday urged the company to hammer out a deal with its workers to ensure fair pay and schedules.
"For four long years, SBWU members have fought tirelessly for better pay, fair hours, and adequate staffing for more than 12,000 workers and counting," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "Yet Starbucks has dug its heels in, engaging in shameless and persistent union busting... We urge Niccol and Starbucks corporate executives to finally do right by the workers who drive the company’s profit and negotiate a long-overdue fair contract."
SEIU pledged support for the Starbucks workers, while also placing the strike in the context of the broader fight between labor and capital.
"Today’s strike isn’t just about Starbucks," the union wrote in a social media post. "It’s about a broken system where billionaires and CEOs keep getting richer while the politicians they bankroll gut our wages, healthcare, and rights. Baristas are fighting for a fair contract and for a more just society."
Some progressive politicians also gave the striking workers a shoutout.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) vowed to keep out of Starbucks franchises until the workers' demands are met.
"When we strike, we win!" Tlaib exclaimed.
New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani joined the Starbucks boycott and encouraged all of his supporters to follow suit.
"Together, we can send a powerful message: No contract, no coffee," the democratic socialist wrote.
Democratic socialist Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson—whose city is home to the coffee giant's headquarters—attended an SBWU rally where she joined them on the picket line and said, "I am not buying Starbucks, and you should not either."
Socialist Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson's first move after winning the election was to boycott Starbucks, a hometown company. pic.twitter.com/zPoNULxfuk
— Ari Hoffman 🎗 (@thehoffather) November 14, 2025
Starbucks workers began their strike on Thursday, and SBWU has warned the company that it is prepared to dig in for a long fight unless it returns to the negotiating table.
Negotiations between the union and Starbucks stalled out last spring, and more than 90% of unionized baristas last week voted to authorize a strike intended to hit the company during the busy holiday season.
As its workers fight for a living wage and for the company to address hundreds of labor violation complaints, Starbucks Workers United says it's prepared for the "biggest and longest" strike in the company's history.
As hundreds of Starbucks workers go on strike across the US to protest the company's unfair labor practices, its union is telling customers to boycott the company in hopes of pressuring it to return to the bargaining table to negotiate its first union contract.
“As of today, Starbucks workers across the country are officially ON STRIKE,” said Starbucks Workers United, the union representing nearly 10,000 baristas, on social media Thursday. “We’re prepared for this to become the biggest and longest [unfair labor practices] strike in Starbucks history.”
The union implored customers: "DON'T BUY STARBUCKS for the duration of our open-ended ULP strike!"
The strike comes after negotiations between the union and the company stalled out in April. Last week, 92% of union baristas voted to authorize a strike as the company's lucrative holiday season began. They are hoping to turn the company’s annual “Red Cup Day,” during which it gives out free reusable cups to customers, into a “Red Cup Rebellion.”
The union says three of its core demands remain unmet. It has called for the company to address "rampant" understaffing, which it says has led to longer wait times for customers and overwhelmed staff, while simultaneously leaving workers without enough hours to afford the cost of living.
It also seeks higher take-home pay for workers. Starting baristas make just over $15 per hour, which data from MIT shows is not enough to afford the cost of living in any US state when working 40 hours a week. According to the union, most Starbucks workers receive fewer than 20 hours of work per week, rendering them ineligible for benefits.
The union has drawn a contrast between its workers' pay, which averages less than $15,000 a year, and that of CEO Brian Niccol, who raked in a total compensation package of $96 million in just four months after taking over last year.
"Too many of us rely on SNAP or Medicaid just to get by, and most baristas still don’t earn a livable wage. In a majority of states, starting pay is just $15.25 an hour—and even then, we’re not getting the 20 hours a week we need to qualify for benefits," said Jasmine Leli, a barista and strike captain from Buffalo, New York, where the first Starbucks store in the nation voted to unionize back in 2021.
The company has gone nearly four years without recognizing it. While it claims to have engaged with the union in "good faith," the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has found Starbucks guilty of over 500 labor law violations, making it the worst violator in modern history.
These have included illegal firings and disciplinary actions against union organizers, the illegal withholding of wages and benefits, threats to close stores that unionize, and illegal surveillance of employees. More than 700 unfair labor practice charges made against the company remain unresolved, including 125 of them filed since January.
According to an estimate from the Strategic Organizing Center, Starbucks' union-busting had cost the company more than $240 million through February 2024. That money was lost in the form of legal fees and payments to consultants, as well as productivity lost due to anti-union store closures and captive audience meetings.
“Things have only gone backwards at Starbucks under Niccol’s leadership," Leli said. "But a fair union contract and the resolution of hundreds of unfair labor practice charges are essential to the company’s turnaround."
The union has argued that in order to meet their demands for a fair contract, it would cost less than a single day's sales.
The strike begins just days after 85 US lawmakers—led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—sent letters demanding that the company stop union-busting and negotiate a fair deal with its employees.
"Starbucks is not a poor company," the Senate letter said to Niccol. "Last year, Starbucks made over $3.6 billion in profit and paid out nearly $5 billion in stock buybacks and dividends. In fact, in the first three quarters of the year, Starbucks made $1.7 billion in profit and paid out over $2 billion in dividends. Last year, you made $95 million in compensation for the four months you worked in 2024, roughly 6,666 times more than what your average worker was paid for the entire year."
"Despite that extravagant spending on executives and shareholders, Starbucks refuses to reach an agreement with its own workers even though you are less than one average day’s sales apart from a contract," it continued. "Starbucks must reverse course from its current posture, resolve its existing labor disputes, and bargain a fair contract in good faith with these employees."
The strike will begin at 65 stores across more than 40 US cities, with rallies scheduled in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Columbus, and Anaheim, among other locations. The union said the strike is "open-ended," with no set end date, and that baristas across more than 550 unionized stores across the country are prepared to join in.
“If Starbucks keeps stonewalling a fair contract and refusing to end union-busting, they’ll see their business grind to a halt,” said Michelle Eisen, a spokesperson for Starbucks Workers United, who has worked as a barista for 15 years. “'No contract, no coffee' is more than a tagline—it’s a pledge to interrupt Starbucks’ operations and profits until a fair union contract and an end to unfair labor practices are won."
“Starbucks must reverse course from its current posture, resolve its existing labor disputes, and bargain a fair contract in good faith with these employees.”
As Starbucks workers prepare to strike amid stalled contract talks with management, more than 80 US lawmakers on Monday demanded that bosses at the world's largest coffee chain stop union busting and negotiate a fair deal for employees.
Starbucks workers—who have been in talks with company bosses led by CEO Brian Niccol for over a year—accuse management of stonewalling on key contract issues including higher pay, more hours, and an end to unfair labor practices and union busting. Last week, members of Starbucks Workers United overwhelmingly voted to authorize an unfair labor practices strike—they're calling it a "Red Cup Rebellion"—at over 650 locations if the company fails to finalize a fair contract by November 13.
Members of the Congressional Labor Caucus led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Senate and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) in the House sent letters to Niccol expressing their concern over management's "failure to reach a fair first contract with its baristas" and a "troubling return to union busting."
"In February 2024, Starbucks and Workers United announced a path forward to commit to negotiating a foundational framework for contracts, establishing a fair process for organizing, and resolving outstanding legal issues," the Senate letter states. "We were hopeful that the company would abide by this commitment and bargain in good faith with Starbucks workers who exercised their right to form a union."
The lawmakers continued:
As you well know Starbucks is not a poor company. Last year Starbucks made over $3.6 billion in profit and paid out nearly $5 billion in stock buybacks and dividends. In fact, in the first three quarters of the year, Starbucks made $1.7 billion in profit and paid out over $2 billion in dividends. Last year, you made $95 million in compensation for the four months you worked in 2024, roughly 6,666 times more than what your average worker was paid for the entire year.
Despite that extravagant spending on executives and shareholders, Starbucks refuses to reach an agreement with its own workers even though you are less than one average day’s sales apart from a contract. To make matters worse, Starbucks recently began closing stores across the country and laying off hundreds of workers as part its $1 billion restructuring plan. It is clear that Starbucks has the money to reach a fair agreement with its workers.
"Starbucks must reverse course from its current posture, resolve its existing labor disputes, and bargain a fair contract in good faith with these employees," the letter demands.
Starbucks Workers United has already filed more than 100 charges against the coffee giant over the past 11 months, alleging unfair labor practices including reprisals against unionizing baristas. The union calls Starbucks "the biggest violator of labor law in modern history," as administrative law judges and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have found that the company has committed more than 500 violations of labor law.
Niccol—who last year became Starbucks’ fourth CEO in just two years—brought with him a history of union busting during his previous job as the head of Chipotle. Under his leadership, the fast-food chain closed a store in Augusta, Maine in 2022 after employees there tried to make it the company’s first unionized location. The workers filed a complaint at the NLRB, which ruled that the closure was an illegal act of union busting.
Workers at more than 600 Starbucks locations across the United States have voted to unionize since baristas at a store on Elmwood Avenue in Buffalo, New York became the first to do so in late 2021.
“Union baristas mean business and are ready to do whatever it takes to win a fair contract and end Starbucks’ unfair labor practices,” Michelle Eisen, a Starbucks Workers United spokesperson and 15-year veteran barista, said in a statement announcing last week's strike authorization. “We want Starbucks to succeed, but turning the company around and bringing customers back begins with listening to and supporting the baristas who are responsible for the Starbucks experience."
"If Starbucks keeps stonewalling, they should expect to see their business grind to a halt," Eisen added. "The ball is in Starbucks’ court.”
CEOs of the 100 S&P 500 firms with the lowest median wages, a group we’ve dubbed the “Low-Wage 100,” have enjoyed skyrocketing pay over the past six years.
The gap between CEO compensation and median worker pay at Starbucks hit 6,666 to 1 last year. In other words, to make as much money as their CEO made last year, typical baristas would’ve had to start brewing macchiatos around the time humans first invented the wheel.
Starbucks takes the prize for the most obscene corporate pay disparities of 2024. But jaw-dropping gaps are the norm among America’s leading low-wage corporations.
This year’s edition of the annual Institute for Policy Studies Executive Excess report finds that CEOs of the 100 S&P 500 firms with the lowest median wages, a group we’ve dubbed the “Low-Wage 100,” have enjoyed skyrocketing pay over the past six years.

In 2024, average compensation for Low-Wage 100 top executives rose to $17.2 million, up 34.7% since 2019 (not adjusted for inflation). Global median worker pay at these firms stood at just $35,570, after increasing at a nominal rate of only 16.3% since 2019—significantly below the 22.6% US inflation rate. The Low-Wage 100 pay ratio increased 12.9% to 632 to 1 over the past half decade.
Here’s yet another sign of the Low-Wage 100’s skewed priorities: Between 2019 and 2024 these firms spent a combined $644 billion on stock buybacks. This once-illegal financial maneuver artificially inflates the value of a company’s shares and, in the process, pumps up the value of CEOs’ stock-based compensation. Even the most inept executives can rake in vast fortunes through this scam.
Every dollar spent on buybacks represents a dollar not spent on workers. The tradeoffs can be downright staggering. At Lowe’s, for instance, every one of their 273,000 employees could’ve gotten an annual $28,456 bonus over the past six years with the money the retailer blew on stock buybacks. Lowe’s median worker pay in 2024: $30,606.
80% of workers said they view corporate CEOs as overpaid, and nearly 70% said they do not believe their own company’s CEO could do the job they do for even one week.
If McDonald’s had spent their buyback outlays on worker bonuses during this period, they could’ve given all their employees an extra $18,338 per year—more than that company’s median wage.
Siphoning resources from workers to make CEOs even richer is especially outrageous at a time when so many Americans are struggling with high costs for groceries, housing, and other essentials.

Stock buybacks also divert resources from capital investments vital to long-term growth, such as employee training or upgrading technology, equipment, and properties.
At 56 Low-Wage 100 companies, outlays for stock buybacks actually exceeded capital expenditures between 2019 and 2024. If we exclude Amazon, a CapEx outlier, the Low-Wage 100 as a whole spent considerably more on buybacks than on capital expenditures over this six-year period.
Extensive research has also shown that excessive CEO compensation is bad for business because extreme internal pay disparities undermine employee morale and boost turnover rates.
As poll after poll after poll has shown, Americans across the political spectrum are fed up with overpaid CEOs and want government action. In one rather amusing recent survey, 80% of workers said they view corporate CEOs as overpaid, and nearly 70% said they do not believe their own company’s CEO could do the job they do for even one week.
How could policymakers incentivize more equitable pay practices? Several bills in the US Congress and state legislatures would increase taxes on corporations with huge CEO-worker pay gaps. Polls suggest this would be enormously popular. In one survey of likely voters, 89% of Democrats, 77% of Independents, and 71% of Republicans said they’d like to see tax hikes on companies that pay their CEOs more than 50 times what they pay their median employees.
Congress could also increase the 1% excise tax on stock buybacks that went into effect in 2023. If that tax had been set at 4%, the Low-Wage 100 would have owed approximately $6.3 billion in additional federal taxes on their share repurchases during the past two years. That revenue would’ve been enough to cover the cost of 327,218 public housing units for two years.
Policymakers have ample tools for tackling the problem of runaway CEO pay. Now they just need to listen to their constituents and get the job done.
"At a time when many American workers are struggling with high costs for groceries and housing, the nation's largest low-wage employers are fixated on making their overpaid CEOs even richer," said the author of a new report.
Detailing the widening gap between outrageously high CEO compensation and the median wages of employees at some of the world's largest and most profitable companies, a progressive think tank on Thursday warned executives will continue to enrich themselves at the expense of their lowest-paid workers unless policies are adopted to curb such corporate greed.
"Across the political spectrum, Americans are fed up with overpaid CEOs," said Sarah Anderson, program director at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and author of a new report out Thursday. "Policymakers should take long overdue action to push Corporate America in a more equitable direction."
The report, Executive Excess 2025, finds that absent federal policies forcing corporations to rein in their spending on stock buybacks and exorbitant CEO pay packages, the average CEO-to-worker pay gap widened by 12.9% last year at what IPS calls the "Low-Wage 100"—the 100 S&P 500 companies with the lowest median worker pay.
The average gap between executive and worker pay now stands at 632-to-1 at these firms, up from 560-to-1 in 2023.
Between 2019-24, the average CEO at a Low-Wage 100 company saw their pay rise 34.7%, unadjusted for inflation, while the average median worker pay rose just 16.3%.
CEO compensation increased by 22.6% over the time period, far outpacing inflation. Meanwhile, wage hikes by these same companies didn't even match inflation, including for warehouse workers at software company Aptiv, where the CEO-to-worker pay gap was 2,072-to-1 last year, or cashiers at Ross Stores, where the gap was 1,770-to-1.
"We can curb this runaway source of inequality by taxing corporate greed."
Aptiv CEO Kevin Clark was paid $18.8 million last year while the median worker at the firm made just $9,052. Ross Stores' pay ratio was similar, with CEO Barbara Rentler taking home $17 million compared to the company's median worker, who made just $9,602.
Starbucks, which has made headlines in recent years both for its store employees' fight to unionize across the United States and for its executives' illegal union-busting tactics, had far-and-away the largest gap between CEO and median worker pay in 2024, with CEO Brian Niccol taking home $95.8 million and the median employee earning just $14,674.
That makes the wage gap 6,666-to-1 at the coffee chain.
A petition organized last year by Starbucks Workers United, which has unionized at hundreds of stores since a landmark victory in Buffalo, New York in 2021, warned Niccol that the cost of living across the US "is skyrocketing while you continue to make millions" and the employees "who actually make your Starbucks run can't make ends meet."
IPS said the petition reflected its report's main finding: "At a time when many American workers are struggling with high costs for groceries and housing, the nation's largest low-wage employers are fixated on making their overpaid CEOs even richer."
Contributing to the growing wage gap at the Low-Wage 100 is the companies' focus on stock buybacks, in which firms buy back their own shares to "artificially inflate executive stock-based pay and siphon resources out of worker wages and productive long-term investments."
The 100 companies spent $644 billion on stock buybacks from 2019-24, according to IPS, with home improvement giant Lowe's ranking as the "stock buy back leader," spending $46.6 billion buying its own shares over the past six years.
"That sum could've instead covered the cost of giving each of the firm's 273,000 global employees an annual $28,456 bonus for six years," reads the report. "In 2024, Lowe's CEO Marvin Ellison enjoyed total compensation of $20.2 million, which is 659 times the retailer's $30,606 median annual worker pay."
Anderson said the report highlights "how America's largest low-wage employers are funneling profits into their CEOs' pockets—at the expense of both their workers and their companies' long-term growth."
IPS pointed to "three particularly promising areas for CEO pay policy reform," including:
Congress should pass the Curtailing Executive Overcompensation (CEO) Act, which would apply an excise tax to companies with CEO-to-worker pay ratios exceeding 50-to-1, or the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, said the group.
"A May 2024 survey suggests that such taxes would be enormously popular," reads the report. "Overall, 80% of likely voters favor a tax hike on corporations that pay their CEOs over 50 or more times more than what they pay their median employees. Large majorities in every political group support this approach: some 89% of Democrats, 77% of independents, and 71% of Republicans. In swing states, 83% of likely voters give this proposal a thumbs up."
Other legislation, the Stock Buyback Accountability Act, would quadruple the 1% federal excise tax currently in effect for stock buybacks, and would have raised $6.3 billion from the Low-Wage 100 if it had been in effect in 2023 and 2024—enough to cover the cost of 327,218 public housing units each year for two years.
"We can curb this runaway source of inequality," said IPS, "by taxing corporate greed."
The CEO of Starbucks made 6,666 times as much as the company's median employee, all while the company crushes workers' efforts to unionize.
The staggering inequality between bosses and workers only continued to grow last year, according to a new report from the AFL-CIO on executive pay.
The union's latest "Executive Paywatch" report, which uses data from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to track the pay disparities between CEOs and the employees that work for them, found that the average S&P 500 executive made an eye-popping 285 times more than their median worker did, up from a 268-to-1 ratio in 2023.
CEOs received a $1.4 million raise last year, the data shows, bringing their average yearly compensation up to $18.9 million, a 7% increase. The median worker, meanwhile, made just $49,500, marking just a 3% increase from the year before.
In order to make the same amount as their boss made in a single year, the report noted that the typical employee would need to have begun working in 1740—"Before the AMERICAN REVOLUTION," the union noted on X.
By far the widest disparity was at Starbucks, where CEO Brian Niccol—who took over the company last year—brought home 6,666 times as much as his median employee.
In 2024, while the average Starbucks employee took home less than $15,000, Niccol received a compensation package, primarily made up of company stock, worth nearly $98 million.
For more than three years, Starbucks has waged what New York Times columnist Megan Stack called a "dirty war" against its employees' attempts to unionize.
The company has fired union organizers and pro-union workers, cut their hours to deny them healthcare coverage, shut down unionized stores, and subjected employees to aggressive anti-union "captive audience" meetings.
The Economic Policy Institute estimates that Starbucks has likely had more complaints of illegal union-busting filed against it than any other company in the National Labor Relations Board's 90-year history.
In response to the AFL-CIO's new report, the X account for Starbucks Workers United wrote: "When Starbucks and CEO Brian Niccol tries to tell us they can't afford fair union contracts... remember this."
Starbucks is merely the most glaring example of the inequality highlighted in the report: Coca-Cola, General Electric, Ross Stores, Yum! Brands, Chipotle, and many other flagship American companies paid their CEOs more than 1,000 times as much as their median workers.
These disparities are projected to get even larger following the passage of President Donald Trump's recent budget legislation, which guts social safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps in order to pay for gigantic new tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest Americans.
It has been described by some economic analysts as the "largest transfer of wealth in history."
According to a study by the University of Pennsylvania, the incomes of the top 0.1% wealthiest households will increase by more than $83,000 on average by 2033, while the incomes of the poorest 40% will decline.
"Corporate CEOs are raking in millions, and now they'll get another kickback from President Trump's tax cut gift and anti-worker agenda," said Fred Redmond, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO.
The average marginal tax rate paid by these executives, the report found, will decrease by nearly $500,000 a year. In all, the CEOs in the report will be able to avoid paying an extra $738 million in income taxes thanks to the bill.
That lost tax revenue, the report found, could have paid for Medicaid healthcare coverage for more than 80,000 people, SNAP food assistance for over 300,000, or school lunches for more than 900,000 students.
The report notes that many of the CEOs and companies that are expected to profit royally from the bill gave large donations to Trump's inauguration, including Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Coinbase's Brian Armstrong, Google's Sundar Pichai, and Meta's Mark Zuckerberg.
"Is it any wonder," asked former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, "so many people think the system is rigged?"
Despite our different languages and cultures, Starbucks workers around the world are saying the same thing: We want to be treated with respect and dignity.
For five years, I've been brewing coffee and serving customers at Starbucks. I love connecting with people, crafting creative drinks, and learning about coffee. But what I've witnessed behind the green apron tells a different story than the one Starbucks executives want you to hear.
At the Workers United convention in Ohio earlier this year, I had the privilege of meeting Starbucks workers and the unions that represent them from Brazil, Chile, and the United Kingdom. Despite our different languages and cultures, Starbucks workers around the world are saying the same thing: We want to be treated with respect and dignity. We all shared stories of a company that talks about caring for its partners while systematically failing to support the people who make their business possible in the first place.
The barista from Chile I spoke with described conditions that were heartbreaking. They said they are required to work in extreme heat with no support to address the dangerous working conditions. When they went to bargain for better pay, they told me what Starbucks offered wouldn't even cover basic bills and food. The pay increase they were fighting for—literally less than a dollar—put into perspective just how little this multibillion dollar company values its workers.
Starbucks' issues in Latin America extend beyond how it treats its workers in the stores and into its supply chains, as it is now the target of allegations in a new lawsuit claiming their Brazilian coffee is made under slavery-like conditions. And the pressure campaign has grown as local unions and human rights groups recently demanded the Brazilian retail brand FARM Rio end its partnership with the coffee giant. These aren't just abstract allegations—the allegations involve real workers, real families, and real human suffering in the coffee giant's supply chain.
Starbucks executives can improve operations and public perception right now by listening to union baristas who are committed to building a better company.
This international scrutiny isn't limited to Latin America. In the U.K., workers described navigating complex bureaucratic channels just to organize. Everywhere I looked, I saw the same pattern: Starbucks partners demanding respect, safety, and fair treatment, while the company prioritizes all the wrong things.
Here in the United States, we're experiencing our own version of this neglect. Customers wait 30 minutes for lattes while we're understaffed, underpaid, and undersupported. Mobile orders pour in while only two people work an entire shift. We're forced to enforce policies that put us in danger—like denying the bathroom or water to people seeking shelter—while fearing for our jobs if we speak up. Meanwhile, Starbucks executives are focusing on what color T-shirts we wear instead of bargaining in good faith with the union and addressing real operational problems. The contradiction is stark: a company that claims to care about its partners while baristas rely on Medicaid because we can't get guaranteed hours to qualify for health insurance.
I can't imagine how many more stories there are just like mine that go unheard. Starbucks is under fire around the globe due to allegations of forced Uyghur labor in their Chinese supply chains, exploitation in Mexico, and its use of a Swiss subsidiary to avoid taxes. Yet, CEO Brian Niccol—who made $96 million in just four months last year and commutes to work in a private jet—has failed to address these serious issues abroad, all while the company has committed hundreds of unfair labor practices in the U.S. and he's ignoring union baristas' demand for fair contracts at home.
Starbucks won't turn this business around by allegedly violating labor law internationally and domestically, and failing to finalize fair union contracts. Fighting with baristas—whether in Seattle or São Paulo—is bad for business. We're the ones who open stores every morning, greet customers, make the coffee, and remember favorite orders. We're central to their turnaround strategy, and I have yet to see them address our concerns. We've been bargaining since April 2024 for a fair contract, but Starbucks continues to drag its feet.
But workers aren't staying silent. Just this month, we won our 600th union election in the U.S.. We're growing stronger, and we're building solidarity with Starbucks workers and customers across borders.
Starbucks executives can improve operations and public perception right now by listening to union baristas who are committed to building a better company. We've been ready to consider proposals that include actual improvements in staffing, guaranteed hours, and take-home pay.
The choice is yours, Starbucks. You can continue fighting the people you call "partners" while facing mounting international scrutiny, or you can finally live up to your claims about being the best place to work. The world is watching, and we're organizing.