TINSTAAFL is intro level high school econ. Your entire post is covered in supply side economics mindset and straw men.
There is plenty of economic support for higher rates of actual taxation for the rich and corporations. There are also a lot of considerations that go into how many jobs to create, and how much to pay.
The implied inverse to your arguments is a proposal of no minimum wage and no corporate or taxes on the rich because they're the holy job creators! See how easy it is to make you sound equally preposterous by building up straw men?
It's like this: if you increase the middle and lower class's wages and you give them money they are much more likely to spend it than invest it. When they spend it, they create additional demand. Unlike investment, increased demand typically results in increased jobs (you need to be able to make more widgets, and therefore you need more people). Can you do that without adding jobs? To some degree with efficiency or increased prices per widget... But at some point you leave money on the table by not expanding your employment base. Essentially, the money trickles up.
Another common complaint is that if you tax the rich and corporations more they just won't work harder. Simple thought experiment. You make $1million dollars a year. I create a tax that says all pay over $1million is taxed an additional 20%. Assume a tax rate of 40% so far. So you take home 600k on your first million, but only 400k on your next. Are you gonna stop at 600k because fuck the government leeches? No. Probably not, because while 600k is better than 400k, 400k is WAY BETTER than 0k. The selfish goal is to make as much money ad you can. If you stop making money for tax reasons you might be a little crazy.
If you look at all the proposed costs, increased taxes and reallocated resources from the overzealous military industrial complex supporting budget gets you there. No, it's not free. But between having a military budget that's 6x bigger than the next biggest (an ally) when our military expeditions should tend to be coalition style anyway, is a little unsustainable, if not just unwise. That money is better spent growing our economic competitiveness, sending people to higher Ed, training the most talented and intelligent workforce in the world. That will attract the employers. It will create employers. And it will make us more competitive internationally on an economic level. Infrastructure is another one on the same level, companies want to do business in an environment that makes doing business efficient. If our roads, bridges, transport, communication tech, etc. Are all ancient it increases their costs to facilitate what they're trying to do.
Germany does a lot of these things... And they are one of a few countries holding up he EuroZone.
Not everyone is getting a job ... No one is throwing around full employment. What we do have issues with is un- and under-employment. The 5ish % unemployment number they're talking about right now is bullshit. Youth unemployment, black unemployment, and underemployment are all really bad... And it doesn't put us on a good track in the long run economically either. When he baby boomers leave we're going to have massive brain drain. If you think millennials are going to replace them you have another thing coming because so many of them are inexperienced; they entered the workforce in the collapse, don't have living wages, work whatever jobs they could get (barista, waiters, McDonalds, etc.). Sure some went onto professional careers, but even a lot of them are struggling. Careers like law which used to command very high salaries now do not. Lawyers are fighting over jobs that pay 40-60k a year with 6-figure debt. If we followed to perspective you claim we would either think everything now is hunky-dory or that we should provide more benefits to the rich and the corporations. Which economically does not create jobs nearly as well as funding the demand side of the economic equation.
PS. I took more than an intro to economics class. Let's rumble.