That's RIGHT

By reducing the tax burden on Corporations and the Wealthy we have effectively reduced the incentives to invest in businesses and take "Risk" in a real world market place.

Allowing Corporations to hold money "Off-Shore" untaxed has only created abuses of the Corporate Tax Code and stagnation of Middle Class Wages

Demand drives supply and it always has. If you make widgets and you have a warehouse full of them, you won't hire people to make more just because you have the money to do so. You hire more people when the demand for your product outstrips your ability to produce it.

Want more jobs!? Create more demand. We've known this for decades, but supply-side idiots manage to keep people buying their bullshit. It's unbelievable.

Slave owners are job creators.
Monarchs and Nobles are job creators.

"Job creation" is meant to justify the existence of oligarchy.
Even "Divine Right" sounds better than that.

Jobs are created by an excess of demand, not an excess of supply.

Lower corporate taxes means it's easier to take money out of the business. Hi corporate taxes on profits means that there's more incentive to roll the money back into the business because that way you can increase the value of your assets.

I read the book he co-authored, The Gardens of Democracy and one of the books it is based on, The Origin of Wealth. The world can't adopt these ideas soon enough.

my services. And my clients have been economically devastated by the drive to enrich a few wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor.

I notice in talking ( arguing ) with conservatives; ones other than paranoid gun nuts or racists, that they get really defensive, like Defcon 5, when I trash supply-side economics and promote demand-side. It's like holding a cross in front of a vampire's face. They can argue or disagree on any other point, but questioning trickle-down really really puts them on edge and they get almost panicky in defense of it.

I say it's cognitive dissonance because to them it's a tribal partisan article of faith and the empirical evidence mounting against it is too much for them.

There is no way they can chicken/egg their way out of it: No citizen can be a consumer without in turn being paid for producing first.

credit cards hid the cost of tinkle down.

In general, businesses are already operating with no more employees than they must have in order to function. Like you say, they are not charities. If they need x employees, that's what they hire, and they're not going to lay one off because he's about to cost another $50 or $100 a week. If they could get by without him, he'd already be gone.

The possible exception is if higher wages causes a company to raise its prices. If the higher prices then lead to lower sales, they might be able to then get by with fewer employees. But that's a kind of "perfect storm" scenario that will be an exception rather than the rule. Often, a company's sales should increase with higher prevailing wages because more people will be able to afford their product or service.

I tend to disregard the arguments of people who are benefitting from a bad situation and say that it is a necessary evil they cannot change.

How many times in history have we been told reforms were impossible right up until they were forced through and the world didn't end?