Productivity has been rising decade after decade - the younger generation produces more than enough to sustain even a larger older generation. Much of that wealth production is re-routed to those at the top of the wealth pyramid. Moving even some of that back downwards would do a lot to resolve these problems.
This is a consequence of an increasing labor force. If productivity rises but there are more workers available than are necessary to produce the goods demanded, the price for labor will fall, and all of the gains of this productivity will be accrued by capital. If there are fewer workers available than are needed to man the machines, the wages paid to those workers will increase, and all the productivity gains will be captured by labor.
The plight of the American worker tracks very well with how many of them there are (modulo globalization, which makes the plight of the worker track with how many there are globally). The golden years of the 1950s coincided with the depopulation and destruction of capital stock following WW2; this made America the only country that still had productive industry, which brought in a good deal of global money that could be shared with the G.I. and Silent generations. 70s stagflation and 80s malaise coincided with the entry of baby boomers into the workforce and household-forming years: with more laborers, wages fell, and with more consumers for a fixed number of goods, prices rose. The late 80s recovery and 90s boom coincided with Gen-X and the retirement of the G.I. Generation: with few incoming workers and lots of outgoing ones, wages rose. The post-2000 malaise coincides with the entry of Millenials into the workforce: the world population has grown from 4.5 billion in the early 80s to 7.7 billion today, and all those young people are entering the workforce now.
It's likely that as the Boomers die off and the Homelander generation (post-2001 & tiny) enters the workforce, wages will rise naturally and capital prices will fall significantly.
It's important to keep in mind that the older generation that needs to be supported right now and the generations before had plenty of kids and the problem does not exist at the moment - it's more about what happens if the trends holds and the generations that are at well below replacement rates start retiring.
Also, most of the wealth held by the top of the wealth pyramid is not what has already been produced, but merely claims on future production. I doubt people at the top of the wealth pyramid consume all that much as a fraction of the society's productive capacity - either they are holding onto existing claims or creating new claims by making investments that would increase the future productive capacity.
So if there was a production gap and the youth is not able to support the older generation due to the lack of productive capacity, moving the wealth downwards would exacerbate the gap, because you'd be redirecting some of the productive capacity towards consumption rather than investment.
Wealth governs the distribution of product, not the quantity of product. Reassign 100% of the wealth of the infirm to the able, and discover that the labor of the able does not change.
Citation needed.
Productivity has been rising decade after decade - the younger generation produces more than enough to sustain even a larger older generation. Much of that wealth production is re-routed to those at the top of the wealth pyramid. Moving even some of that back downwards would do a lot to resolve these problems.