It doesn't invalidate trick down theory - it highlights a weakness in the human behavior in the personality types making those decisions. Ladder climbers vs conscious capitalists would have different results in 'trickle down'.
It’s not trickle-down in the sense that people traditionally talk about trickle-down, since it’s explicitly conditional on hiring. And it’s keeping people employed at a cost of ~$224k per job, which presumably makes it far more expensive than providing aid to those people directly. http://economics.mit.edu/files/20094
would still be running corporations beholden to company & shareholders before all else. Ignoring that (to be nicer than needed to employees or to over-hire) triggers automatic lawsuits from your institutional investors. There's a bit of wiggle-room for decision making, but why do good for the little people unless it's in your charter?
