The OP’s reasoning is based on a popular yet fundamental misunderstanding: an overvaluation of companies with many employees (a.k.a. “big” companies).
The key to economic growth is not firms with many employees, it’s firms with highly productive employees. You want a system that kills off unproductive firms, so that better uses can be found for their capital and employees.
You don’t want a system that kills off highly productive firms just because they stay relatively small. As an example Renaissance Technologies was founded in 1978 and has only about 310 employees today. Yet I can assure you that the US economy would not have been better off without it.
The key to economic growth is not firms with many employees, it’s firms with highly productive employees. You want a system that kills off unproductive firms, so that better uses can be found for their capital and employees.
You don’t want a system that kills off highly productive firms just because they stay relatively small. As an example Renaissance Technologies was founded in 1978 and has only about 310 employees today. Yet I can assure you that the US economy would not have been better off without it.