While I would generally agree with you, in principle, I think you're overstating the benefits of any sort of trickle down. Real median incomes have been stagnan

While I would generally agree with you, in principle, I think you're overstating the benefits of any sort of trickle down. Real median incomes have been stagnant [1] for years now. Today the median American household is earning exactly 1.64% more than it was 18 years ago. The real GDP per capita has increased by about 20% in that same time frame. If the economy even blinks, we're going to be back to doing worse than we were decades ago, in terms of the median. And the counter point to increasing productivity is that in times where companies were no where remotely close to market saturation increasing productivity meant better wages, better jobs, and overall growth for everybody. As companies' product reach market saturation increases in productivity translate to layoffs and stagnant wages. It's this constant race between the growth in the number of products to be produced versus our increase in efficiency at producing the products that already exist. The latter seems to be accelerating much faster than the former, and that's not a good thing. To be clear on the above imagine we have n total products being produced. And as wealth and entrepreneurship expand we see a regular increase of about 10% new products being demanded per unit time. Yet our efficiency at increasing products increases at 15% per unit time. That's going to lead to a squeeze on those that rely on production for their livelihood that can only be ended by deceleration in productivity or acceleration in demand for new products. It's debatable whether or not we're in this situation today - but it certainly does explain many otherwise bizarre economic factors quite handily. [1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N