No, obviously not. But the point is that there is plenty of productivity to go around—the benefits of it just aren't available to most people.

So, if we were to reduce the ability of the people at the very top to siphon away 99% of the productivity gains we've seen over the past 40 years, we would have more than enough food, clothing, and shelter for everyone, with enough margin that people could also work shorter hours without losing the ability to provide for everyone.

The cost of that is that a very small percentage of the population can no longer have massively extravagant lifestyles.