Income inequality accelerated in 2025 as U.S. billionaire wealth climbed sharply while affordability pressures continued to squeeze working families. On the America’s Work Force Union Podcast, Institute for Policy Studies researcher Omar Ocampo outlined new findings showing the combined wealth of 935 U.S. billionaires rising to $8.1 trillion, up from $6.7 trillion a year earlier.
The discussion focused on how asset appreciation, market speculation and a declining labor share of income can concentrate wealth at the top while leaving wages and public services under strain. Ocampo also pointed to state-level tax policy experiments, including surtaxes on high earners and proposed wealth taxes, as models for funding public goods and reducing inequality.
Income inequality is not a theoretical debate for working people, according to Ocampo. It shows up in rent hikes, grocery bills, child care costs, medical debt and the growing distance between paychecks and the price of a stable life.
That gap widened in 2025, according to a new analysis discussed on the America’s Work Force Union Podcast. Omar Ocampo, a researcher with the Institute for Policy Studies’ Program on Inequality and the Common Good, walked listeners through data showing a major expansion in billionaire wealth during the past year.
The analysis, based on publicly available wealth tracking, estimates that the combined wealth of 935 U.S. billionaires rose to $8.1 trillion by the end of 2025, up from $6.7 trillion at the end of 2024. The scale of that increase underscores a central dynamic of the modern economy: wealth at the top can rise quickly, even as many households face persistent affordability pressures.
Ocampo’s core point was straightforward: when gains are driven primarily by asset appreciation rather than broad-based wage growth, the economy can look strong on paper while millions of workers experience insecurity.
The Institute for Policy Studies analysis also focused on the very top tier of wealth holders, often referred to as “centibillionaires,” individuals whose net worth exceeds $100 billion.
Ocampo described a year in which a small group of ultra-wealthy individuals saw their fortunes rise at a pace that outstripped major market benchmarks. The names associated with these gains are familiar in U.S. public life: individuals in the technology and finance industries whose wealth is heavily tied to stock valuations.
The broader significance for labor is not celebrity net worth. It is what extreme concentration can mean for economic power, corporate governance and political influence. When wealth becomes heavily concentrated, the ability to shape policy debates and public priorities can tilt toward those with the most resources.
In practical terms, it can affect everything from tax policy to labor standards to public investment. For unions and worker advocates, the question is not simply whether the rich are getting richer. It is whether the rules of the economy are being set in ways that leave working families with less leverage and fewer protections.
A key theme in Ocampo’s discussion was the declining labor share of income, a long-running trend in which workers receive a smaller portion of the economic value they help create.
Ocampo argued that productivity gains do not automatically translate into higher wages. When bargaining power is weak, when labor standards are eroded or when corporate strategies prioritize shareholder returns over payroll investment, workers can be asked to produce more without receiving a proportional share of the gains.
This is where union density matters. In industries and regions with strong collective bargaining, workers are better positioned to negotiate wages, benefits and retirement security. In workplaces without collective bargaining, wage growth can lag even as corporate profits rise.
For labor relations professionals, this dynamic is familiar: compensation outcomes are shaped by power, policy and bargaining structures, not only by individual performance.
Ocampo also highlighted how market behavior can amplify inequality. When wealth is tied to stocks and other financial assets, a rising market can increase net worth dramatically for those who already hold large portfolios.
This can happen even when underlying business fundamentals do not change at the same pace. In other words, wealth can grow through valuation increases rather than through new production, new wages or new public investment.
The discussion pointed to the post-pandemic economy as an example of how financial markets can rebound or surge even when many households are still recovering. Government interventions designed to stabilize markets can prevent broader economic collapse, but they can also contribute to asset appreciation that disproportionately benefits those who own the most.
For workers, the question becomes whether the economy is structured to reward labor and public service, or primarily to reward asset ownership.
The conversation also addressed a common counterargument: if the stock market rises, do working people benefit through retirement accounts?
Ocampo acknowledged that many retirement funds are invested in the market, which can provide long-term gains for some households. But he emphasized that stock ownership is heavily concentrated, meaning the largest benefits flow to the top slice of investors.
For many workers, retirement accounts are modest, and the day-to-day reality is shaped by housing costs, health care expenses and wage levels. A rising market does not necessarily solve immediate affordability challenges, especially for households without significant assets.
In labor terms, this is the difference between wealth and income. Retirement accounts may grow over time, but wages, benefits and job security determine whether workers can build stability in the first place.
One of the most actionable parts of the discussion with Ocampo focused on state-level tax policy.
Ocampo pointed to examples of states considering or implementing higher taxes on top earners and ultra-wealthy households. He described how targeted surtaxes can raise significant revenue that can be reinvested into public goods such as education and transportation.
The point for labor audiences is not abstract fiscal theory, Ocampo said. It is the connection between revenue and public services that working families rely on: schools, transit, health programs and community infrastructure.
Ocampo also argued that tax policy debates often include fear-based claims about economic harm, but real-world evidence shows that progressive taxation can raise revenue and fund widely used services.
Ocampo cited international examples in which higher union density and stronger social investment are associated with broader economic security.
He also noted that some countries have experimented with wealth taxes and seen mixed results depending on enforcement and design. The takeaway was not that any model can be copied wholesale, but that policy tools exist and can be refined.
For U.S. labor advocates, international comparisons can be useful in one specific way: they demonstrate that high living standards, strong worker protections and modern public services are policy choices, not inevitabilities.
The Institute for Policy Studies’ analysis provides a snapshot of an economy in which wealth at the top can grow rapidly, often through asset appreciation, while many workers face rising costs and uncertain retirement security.
For unions, the implications are clear:
Ocampo closed with a call that aligns with labor’s long-standing strategy: organize workplaces and communities, strengthen collective bargaining and pursue tax and investment policies that rebuild the middle class and protect working people.
Don’t miss an episode: Listen to the full conversation with Omar Ocampo above, then subscribe to the America’s Work Force Union Podcast to stay informed on the economy and labor rights.