This is how things work today. Not how they worked in the past. Again, with the changes that were largely instituted by Reagan, we've put those shareholders ahead of everyone else and it has created a massive inequity problem. But the reality is the business model you put forward is a short-term strategy that has led to off-shoring jobs, off-shoring profits, increased dependency on welfare programs for workers (Wal-Mart, etc) and placing the profit motive above all else, including civic duty.
Which precisely what folks who make tons of money want.
The flipside of that was what Ike had - which led to better pay for the middle class, which had a longer-term effect on elevating generations out of poverty, increased consumer spending & a sustainable housing market, as well as better governance, less reliance on SSI for retirement, etc.
So it's a question of priorities: Do you want short-term gains of stockholders to constantly outweigh the ability of the working class to actually grow and increase their own wealth? We've seen what 40 years of the model you like has produced - massive inequality and a declining middle-class, home-ownership as a pipe dream for at least 2 generations, shifting the cost of business to the taxpayer in the form of massive welfare programs that had traditionally been paid for through company retirement & good health plans, etc.
We've seen what Eisenhower's model produced: Massive economic growth for the working class and middle class, innovation and increased sustainability for those who work for a living, strong manufacturing sectors, solid GDP, strong economic factors that spurred new businesses and strong main-streets where small businesses thrived.