Capitalism can achieve all of those things but it does lead to monopolies. There is plenty of historical examples including our own robber baron periods here in the USA
Unfortunately the "robber baron" concept is a myth.
Take Standard Oil for example. It had 4% of the market in 1870. Its output and market share grew as its superior efficiency dramatically lowered its refining costs (by 1897, they were less than one-tenth of their level in 1869), and it passed on the efficiency savings in sharply reduced prices for refined oil (which fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897). Although Standard Oil's efficiencies did allow it to dominate the oil industry (85% market share), it never achieved a total monopoly (in 1911, the year of the Supreme Court decision against it, Standard Oil had roughly 150 competitors, including Texaco and Gulf).
One of Rockefeller's harshest critics was journalist Ida Tarbell, whose brother was the treasurer of the Pure Oil Company, which could not compete with Standard Oil's low prices. She published a series of hypercritical articles in McClure's magazine in 1902 and 1903, which were turned into a book entitled The History of the Standard Oil Company, a classic of antibusiness propaganda.
Or take the Union Pacific (UP) and the Central Pacific (CP) railroads. These were not created by capitalist processes, but were state socialist creations by The Pacific Railroad Act of 1862. For each mile of track built Congress gave these companies a section of land - most of which would be sold - as well as a sizable loan: $16,000 per mile for track built on flat prairie land; $32,000 for hilly terrain; and $48,000 in the mountains. Compare with the privately built Great Northern transcontinental railroad.
Or take Cornelius Vanderbilt, who invented ways to make travel and shipping cheaper. He used bigger ships, faster ships, served food onboard. He cut the New York-Hartford fare from $8 to $1.
if you hadn't noticed there has been a jobs problem of late, capitalism isn't exactly a panacea.
Nothing in the world is perfect (including government), however you may want to compare the US unemployment rate of 6.1% with the French unemployment rate of 10.1% or the Spanish unemployment rate of 26% (France and Spain are ranked only "Moderately Free" by the Index of Economic Freedom).
And capitalism frequesntly just leads to fewer jobs because it is more profitable to do more with less workers involved.
Where is your data on this? The number of employed people in the US has always tended upwards with only a blip during the most recent financial crisis.
Of course you are correct that US employee productivity per hour rises all the time due to investment in productive capital.
There are only three countries in the world with higher productivity per employee hour than the US. One is Norway, which gets 20% of GDP from oil, and none of those countries have more than 3 million workers. Ireland is one, and it is currently rated "Mostly Free" by the Index of Economic Freedom, as is Luxembourg.
one person with $1,000,000 doesn't spend as much money in the same way that 20 people with $50,000 each would.
One person with $1 million would invest that money into capital, producing new jobs and technology. That capital would be spent on business goods, salaries, etc. All of my savings are in stocks, for example. The "paradox of thrift" is also a myth.
For example, Manufacturers' New Orders: Nondefense Capital Goods Excluding Aircraft which was $70 billion dollars last month.
In fact a number of companies rely on those welfare programs in order to supply a very cheap work force.
I believe you have things backwards. Wages tend to be set by the competitive market for employees, not by availability of welfare programs. If those welfare programs went away, it is unlikely those workers would be paid more by their employees. Now some of the workers, more highly impoverished, may become more incentivized to find ways to accumulate human capital to improve their incomes (or to finish school, etc.) or perhaps to engage in entrepreneurism (I know plenty of recent immigrants without a high school education and without access to welfare programs who make enough to survive doing gardening, building, babysitting, and other odd jobs). Moreover if welfare programs were reduced to those not currently working, they may be incentivized to re-enter the labor force.