1. Irrelevant, as I never claimed such. I pointed out the lack of correlation between billionaires per capita increasing over time, and poverty over the same period of time. Not all correlation is causally linked, but all causally linked things are also necessarily correlated. But if two things are not correlated, then they can't be causally linked, either (at least not to a statistically-significant degree that isn't wiped out by other factors), and that's what I pointed out.
2. So, by which financial measure would you say that working-class Americans in 1925 are doing better than they are in 2025, then? There must be at least one, if your assertion is correct.
3. Then that should make the question above, all the easier to answer.

Working class Americans (and not just those at or below the federal poverty line) support policy changes that would materially improve their lives. When those policies conflict with the interests of billionaires, the billionaires stop them from passing.

Are you seriously suggesting that legislation that is detrimental to billionaires never becomes law?

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, among other things, imposed an excise tax on stock buybacks, something that will literally never impact anyone who isn't significantly wealthy, and that passed. A year before, the Corporate Transparency Act passed, and basically struck the death knell for shell company schemes, (not a whole lot of that happening among the working class, lol) by requiring "Beneficial Owners" to be reported to FinCEN, so they know who the actual human beings who own them are. Billionaires lost the ability to hide assets and real estate within anonymous LLCs.

It's ridiculous to think that billionaires are all just smiting any and all legislation that would negatively impact them at will. You are clearly deep in some echo chambers.

A year before, the Corporate Transparency Act passed, and basically struck the death knell for shell company schemes... by requiring "Beneficial Owners" to be reported to FinCEN, so they know who the actual human beings who own them are. Billionaires lost the ability to hide assets and real estate within anonymous LLCs.

You mean the same Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) that Trump and Musk killed the enforcement of after a tweet? (Both billionaires, btw.)

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, among other things, imposed an excise tax on stock buybacks, something that will literally never impact anyone who isn't significantly wealthy, and that passed.

Are you arguing that a 1% excise tax limited to stock buybacks (even lower than the 2 and 3% I already argued won't change the status quo) in any way counters the well-documented fact that billionaires and corporations have dozens of ways to avoid paying taxes?

::: spoiler Corporations even managed to dodge the IRA's headline tax: the CAMT
(2022)

Part of the IRA was budgeted for hiring more tax auditors. Corporations underpay every chance they get and won't pay a penny more until an auditor can prove the difference.

(2023 through 2024)

The IRS repeatedly provided relief and from penalties due to underpayment.

(2025)

Under Trump (2025), the IRS has shrunk. In theory, the IRA should have led to increased taxes. In practice, corporations were able to stall until they had an administration that gutted the IRS' ability to collect.
:::

Your headline of "we passed a law that says they'll pay" doesn't match the reality of "but not this year because they say it's too complicated, we don't have enough staff to audit them, and they have more accountants than we have people who specialize in legally hiding their assets and cooking the numbers."

For every legal loophole that is closed, the ultra-wealthy find or create two more.

Meanwhile, programs designed to serve the needs of the working class are pushed back with "how are you going to pay for it?"

Answer: With the money that billionaires and corporations should be paying, but aren't.

Are you seriously suggesting that legislation that is detrimental to billionaires never becomes law?

It would be convenient for you, if I were to suggest that, or any other argument you try to put in my mouth.

Once in a blue moon, a law will get passed (as you've demonstrated), that they will then ignore, delay, defang, or lobby into irrelevance (as I've demonstrated).

What I am saying (and have been since the beginning) is that the existence of billionaires is a cap on the lives of the working class.

Its very easy to make an incorrect correlation

I think you don't understand what "correlation" means. The correlation is clearly and inarguably what I showed it to be: billionaires per capita went up as poverty went down. That's a plain fact.

43% of the US living in poverty

I'm not going to bother examining how legitimate this stat is, because even if I just take this at face value, what is that compared to the 40-60% I cited? It still does nothing to support the point that billionaires are 'holding the working class down' to any statistically-significant degree. If we take the bottom of the range of the estimate I got, 40%, and took your figure as-is, 43%, then a 7x increase in billionaires per capita increased poverty by 3% total over 100 years! That stat takes "nothingburger" to a whole new level.

That doesn't do much of anything to support the assertion that billionaires are 'capping the lives of the working class', when there being seven times more of them makes no statistically-significant difference in the poverty rate.

Not to mention that 1925 is in the midst of the roaring twenties, before the Great Depression, and your article was written a few years after a global pandemic that wreaked havoc on the world's economy—two facts that both skew things in favor of your claim.