Bullshit. I think we're more likely to see a revolution with the current approach. For example, your willingness to destroy industries because you don't think their wages are high enough.
I agree that current approach will lead to ruin. I simply disagree on how to avoid it. Specifically, I'd enact an unconditional and irremovable citizen wage sufficient to live and function in modern society (food, home, water, electricity, car where it's necessary or public transit where it's sufficient, and Internet connection) and then repeal everything except safety regulations (and even those could be at least considerably eased after people got used to the fact that they can afford to say no). This would simultaneously kill industries that relied on exploiting desperate people, guarantee a level of domestic demand, allow pruning of bureaucracy on both public and private sectors and give companies total flexibility in hiring and firing without crushing anyone underfoot while at it.
Basically, ensure there's one armor-plated ox who can fight off the bears, and everyone will likely be better off.
Why do you think the Gilded Age proves your point? That period was the transition from former colonies to superpower. They must have been doing a lot of things right.
Right? That depends. Do you value superpower status more than not having lots of poverty? I don't, so I think Gilded Age sucked.
The classic "we didn't want those jobs anyway!" response. If they're paying someone to do something, then there's some value to it. I suggest letting it going on rather than burning another hole in the economy and society.
Just like there's an upper bound an employer is willing to pay to get job X done, there's also a lower bound to what dire consequences - such as what level of poverty - a potential employee is willing to suffer to avoid doing X. This means that a society where X gets done has some positive utility for the employer and negative utility for the employee compared to one where it won't. The total utility of doing X dips into negative if the upper bound is low, because the negative utility to the employee of doing the job has fixed components, for example wasting their limited time to do things they don't care about.
In other words, your desire to have a cheap Big Mac isn't more important than the pain of someone who just barely prefers flipping them to homelessness.