This is incorrect. Fed only increases asset value because it increases the value of an asset relative to its revenue generation capacity. Interest rates are a r

This is incorrect. Fed only increases asset value because it increases the value of an asset relative to its revenue generation capacity. Interest rates are a revenue to asset ratio. This means residences are worth more relative to their rents but not that rents are higher. Rising income may be a second-order effect but the low rate at witch it is happening is because the fed is not stimulating enough and constantly missing its inflation target. If it were, employers would be fighting for employees and wages would grow. It's true that the wealthy own most of the assets that gain value with fed stimulation. However, they can only capture that value if they sell them and spend the money while the feds are stimulating. The total future revenue generation of assets is not greater, only the relative value of selling and spending the money now (which incidentally creates jobs and raises wages). The other thing that becomes highly valued when central banks stimulate is the creation of new assets, another thing that increases employment. The Fed does not have "the pedal to the medal" for that it would need to promise to allow inflation go higher which it seems mortally afraid of.