If the labor market is a buyer market (employers picking employees) then trickle down can't work by definition because the labor market is already stacked in favor of the employers. They already obtained all possible positive sum benefit from the strategy.
If the labor market is a sellers market then trickle down could work in theory but a sellers market means we are in an economic boom/expansion so people are happy and don't need further interventions beyond a raise in the interest rate.
>But in a network economy, the means of production have shifted. It’s 10X more fluid, can create wealth at a much higher rate, decrease costs at a much higher rate, and the network can raise all boats.
Okay now things are getting stupid. Economic saturation (aka overproduction) is sort of perverse. When companies boost production (creating wealth at a much higher rate), demand doesn't necesssarily catch up with increased production. [0] What happens is that the increase in productivity allows you to employ less people. That means less people can afford the overproduction because they are out of a job temporarily. Demand is going down in the short term. This means we are overproducing even more products relative to demand, resulting in even more layoffs. Lots of stuff and nobody there to buy it. Lack of demand then results in lack of investment. The economic growth and productivity growth are slowing down...
[0] It may sound shocking but billionaires wouldn't be billionaires if they didn't spend less than they earn. Creating more billionaires or giving them more money is an effective way of decreasing demand and thus the potential for your economy to grow.