

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.
"For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those who can afford to buy it," said the new mayor. "Our City Hall will change that."
"Tax the rich. Tax the rich. Tax the rich."
The chants broke out at City Hall in New York on Thursday as US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) addressed the crowd before swearing in Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who campaigned on a platform that prioritized NYC's working class.
"Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes is not radical. It is exactly the right thing to do," declared Sanders—who endorsed Mamdani even before his June primary victory over former Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and "the billionaire-backed status quo."
The 34-year-old mayor on Thursday described Brooklyn-born Sanders—50 years his senior—as "the man whose leadership I seek most to emulate, who I am so grateful to be sworn in by today."
During the afternoon inauguration ceremony—which followed an early morning swearing-in at the abandoned subway station beneath City Hall—Mamdani also called for taxing the rich as he reiterated the agenda that secured him over 1.1 million votes in November.
"Beginning today, we will govern expansively and audaciously. We may not always succeed, but never will we be accused of lacking the courage to try," he said. "To those who insist that the era of big government is over, hear me when I say this: No longer will City Hall hesitate to use its power to improve New Yorkers' lives."
"Here, where the language of the New Deal was born, we will return the vast resources of this city to the workers who call it home," Mamdani vowed. "Not only will we make it possible for every New Yorker to afford a life they love once again, we will overcome the isolation that too many feel, and connect the people of this city to one another."
The mayor said that "the cost of childcare will no longer discourage young adults from starting a family, because we will deliver universal childcare for the many by taxing the wealthiest few. Those in rent-stabilized homes will no longer dread the latest rent hike, because we will freeze the rent."
"Getting on a bus without worrying about a fare hike or whether you'll be late to your destination will no longer be deemed a small miracle, because we will make buses fast and free," he continued. "These policies are not simply about the costs we make free, but the lives we fill with freedom. For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those who can afford to buy it. Our City Hall will change that."
The ceremony also featured remarks from another early Mamdani supporter, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as well as the swearing-in of Jumaane Williams for a third term as New York City's public advocate and Mark Levine, the new comptroller.
"New York, we have chosen courage over fear," said Ocasio-Cortez, whose district spans the Bronx and Queens. "We have chosen prosperity for the many over spoils for the few. And when the entrenched ways would rather have us dig in our feet and seek refuge in the past, we have chosen instead to turn towards making a new future for all of us."
AOC: New York City has chosen the ambitious pursuit of universal childcare, affordable rents and housing and clean and dignified public transit for all. We have chosen that over the distractions of bigotry and the barbarism of extreme income inequality
[image or embed]
— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) January 1, 2026 at 1:47 PM
As NYC kicked off the new year with progressive city leadership, 2025 findings from the Bloomberg Billionaire Index sparked fresh wealth tax demands. According to the tracker, the world's 500 richest people added a record $2.2 trillion to their collective fortunes last year. About a quarter of that went to just eight Big Tech billionaires: Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Jensen Huang, Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Mark Zuckerberg.
In New York, Mamdani has proposed raising the state corporate tax rate from 8.85% to 11.5% and hiking taxes for individuals who make more than $1 million a year. Achieving those goals would require cooperation from state legislators.
Mamdani acknowledged Thursday that for much of history, the response from City Hall to the question of who New York belongs to has been, "It belongs only to the wealthy and well-connected, those who never strain to capture the attention of those in power."
In the years ahead, he pledged, "City Hall will deliver an agenda of safety, affordability, and abundance, where government looks and lives like the people it represents, never flinches in the fight against corporate greed, and refuses to cower before challenges that others have deemed too complicated."
"Together, we will tell a new story of our city," the mayor said. "This will not be a tale of one city, governed only by the 1%. Nor will it be a tale of two cities, the rich versus the poor. It will be a tale of 8.5 million cities, each of them a New Yorker with hopes and fears, each a universe, each of them woven together."
The promise that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will get ahead, or if you don’t, surely your children will, was broken long ago. But there's a way to turn this around.
If Americans’ hopes of getting ahead have dimmed, as the Wall Street Journal reports yet again, it could only be because the lid of the coffin in which the “American Dream” was long ago laid to rest has finally been sealed shut.
The promise that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will get ahead, or if you don’t, surely your children will, was broken long ago. And today’s economic hardships have left young adults distinctly worse off than their parents, and especially their grandparents.
This long decline has stripped away much of what there was of U.S. social mobility, which never did measure up to its mythic renderings. Let’s look closely at what the economic evidence, compiled in many meticulous studies, tells us about what passed for the American Dream, its demise, and what it would take to make its promised social mobility a reality.
For at least two decades now, the Wall Street Journal has reported the dimming prospects of Americans getting ahead, each time with apparent surprise. In 2005, David Wessell presented the mounting evidence that had punctured the myth that social mobility is what distinguishes the United States from other advanced capitalist societies. A study conducted by economist Miles Corak put the lie to that claim. Corak found that the United States and United Kingdom were “the least mobile” societies among the rich countries he studied. In those two countries, children’s income increased the least from that of their parents. By that measure, social mobility in Germany was 1.5 times greater than social mobility in the United States; Canadian social mobility was almost 2.5 times greater than U.S. social mobility; and in Denmark, social mobility was three times greater than in the United States.
That U.S. social mobility lagged far behind the myth of America as a land of opportunity was probably no surprise to those who populated the work-a-day world of the U.S. economy in 2005. Corrected for inflation, the weekly wages of nonsupervisory workers in 2006 stood at just 85% of what they had been in 1973, over three decades earlier. An unrelenting increase in inequality had plagued the U.S. economy since the late 1970s. A Brookings Institution study of economic mobility published in 2007 reported that from 1979 to 2004, corrected for inflation, the after-tax income of the richest 1% of households increased 176% and increased 69% for the top one-fifth of households—but just 9% for the poorest fifth of households.
The Economist also found this increasing inequality worrisome. But its 2006 article, “Inequality and the American Dream,” assured readers that while greater inequality lengthens the ladder that spans the distance from poor to rich, it was “fine” if it had “rungs.” That is, widening inequality can be tolerated as long as “everybody has an opportunity to climb up through the system.”
Definitive proof that increasing U.S. inequality had not provided the rungs necessary to sustain social mobility came a decade later.
In late 2016, economist Raj Chetty and his multiple coauthors published their study, “The Fading American Dream: Trends.” They documented a sharp decline in mobility in the U.S economy over nearly half a century. In 1970, the household income (corrected for inflation) of 92% of 30-year-olds (born in 1940) exceeded their parents’ income at the same age. By 1990, just three-fifths (60.1%) of 30-year-olds (born in 1960) lived in households with more income than their parents earned at age 30. By 2014, that figure had dropped to nearly one-half. Only 50.3% of children born in 1984 earned more than their parents at age 30. (The figure below depicts this unrelenting decline in social mobility. It shows the relationship between a cohort’s birth year, on the horizontal axis, and the share of the cohort whose income exceeded that of their parents at age 30.)

The study from Chetty and his co-authors also documented that the reported decline in social mobility was widespread. It had declined in all 50 states over the 44 years covered by the study. In addition, their finding of declining social mobility still held after accounting for the effect of taxes and government transfers (including cash payments and payments in kind) on household income. All in all, their study showed that, “Severe Inequality Is Incompatible With the American Dream,” to quote the title of an Atlantic magazine article published at the time. Since then, the Chetty group and others have continued their investigations of inequality and social mobility, which are available on the Opportunity Insights website (opportunityinsights.org).
The stunning results of the Chetty group’s study got the attention of the Wall Street Journal. The headline of Bob Davis’s December 2016 Journal article summed up their findings succinctly: “Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds Earn More Than Their Parents: As wages stagnate in the middle class, it becomes hard to reverse this trend.”
Davis was correct to point to the study’s emphasis on the difficulty of reversing the trend of declining mobility. The Chetty group was convinced “that increasing GDP [gross domestic product] growth rates alone” would not restore social mobility. They argued that restoring the more equal distribution of income experienced by the 1940s cohort would be far more effective. In their estimation, it would “reverse more than 70% of the decline in mobility.”
Since 2014, neither U.S. economic growth nor relative equality has recovered, let alone returned to the levels that undergirded the far greater social mobility of the 1940s cohort. Today, the economic position of young adults is no longer improving relative to that of their parents or their grandparents.
President Donald Trump was fond of claiming that he oversaw the “greatest economy in the history of our country,” during his first term (2017–2020). But even before the onset of the Covid-19-induced recession, his economy was neither the best nor good, especially when compared to the economic growth rates enjoyed by the 1940s cohorts who reached age 30 during the 1970s. During the 1950s and then again during the 1960s, U.S. economic growth averaged more than 4% a year corrected for inflation, and it was still growing at more than 3% a year during the 1970s. From 2015 to 2019, the U.S. economy grew a lackluster 2.6% a year and then just 2.4% a year during the 2020s (2020–2024).
Also, present-day inequality continues to be far worse than in earlier decades. In his book-length telling of the story of the American Dream, Ours Was the Shining Future, journalist David Leonhardt makes that clear. From 1980 to 2019, the household income of the richest 1% and the income of the richest 0.001% grew far faster than they had from 1946 to 1980, while the income of poorer households, from the 90th percentile on down, grew more slowly than they had during the 1946 to 1980 period. As a result, from 1980 to 2019, the income share of the richest 1% nearly doubled from 10.4% to 19%, while the income share of the bottom 50% fell from 25.6% to 19.2%, hardly more than what went to the top 1%. Beyond that, in 2019, the net worth (wealth minus debts) of median, or middle-income, households was less than it had been in 2001, which, as Leonhardt points out, was “the longest period of wealth stagnation since the Great Depression.”
No wonder the American Dream took such a beating in the July 2025 Wall Street Journal-NORC at the University of Chicago poll. Just 25% of people surveyed believed they “had a good chance of improving their standard of living,” the lowest figure since the survey began in 1987. And according to 70% of respondents, the American Dream no longer holds true or never did. That figure is the highest in 15 years.
In full carnival barker mode, Trump is once again claiming “we have the hottest economy on Earth.” But the respondents to the Wall Street Journal-NORC poll aren’t buying it. Just 17% agreed that the U.S. economy “stands above all other economies.” And more than twice that many, 39%, responded that “there are other economies better than the United States.” It’s a hard sell when the inflation-adjusted weekly wages of nonsupervisory workers are still lower than what they had been in 1973, now more than half a century ago.
And economic worries are pervasive. Three-fifths (59%) of respondents were concerned about their student loan debt, more than two-thirds (69%) were concerned about housing, and three-quarters (76%) were concerned about health care and prescription drug costs.
Rising housing costs have hit young adults especially hard. The median price of a home in 1990 was three times the median household income. In 2023, that figure had reached nearly five times the median household income. And the average age of a first-time homebuyer had increased from 29 in 1980 to 38 in 2024.
Finally, in their 2023 study, sociologists Rob J. Gruijters, Zachary Van Winkle, and Anette E. Fasang found that at age 35, less than half (48.8%) of millennials (born between 1980 and 1984) owned a home, well below the 61.6% of late baby boomers (born between 1957 and 1964) who had owned a home at the same age.
In their 2016 study, the Chetty group writes that, “These results imply that reviving the ‘American Dream’ of high rates of absolute mobility would require economic growth that is spread more broadly across the income distribution.”
That’s a tall order. Fundamental changes are needed to confront today’s economic inequality and economic woes. A progressive income tax with a top tax rate that rivals the 90% rate in the 1950s and early 1960s would be welcomed. But unlike the top tax rate of that period, the income tax should tax all capital gains (gains in wealth from the increased value of financial assets such as stocks) and tax them as they are accumulated and not wait until they are realized (sold for a profit). Also, a robust, fully refundable child tax credit is needed to combat childhood poverty, as are publicly supported childcare, access to better schooling, and enhanced access to higher education. Just as important is enacting universal single-payer health care and increased support for first-time homebuyers.
The belief that “their kids could do better than they were able to,” was what Chetty told the Wall Street Journal motivated his parents to emigrate from India to the United States. These fundamental changes could make the American Dream the reality that it never was.
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.