The Shift Index shows that the return on assets has declined over the last 50 years. But GDP is up, so where did it go? Lower consumer prices, and talent (read: creative and managers). So what The Shift Index actually argues for is exactly what the essay is arguing for in the first place: altruism in the pursuit of profits.

Ayn Rand was wrong. You can be selfish and altruistic. You may not know it, but that's what happens when you hire on someone else into a company to create your next big product. You, as the leadership in a company, have brought wealth to a new person and their family, and you have taken that from the shareholder bottom line in order to do so. Of course, talent in this case also considers higher management and leadership which some people say is overpaid. But the shift index also points out that competitiveness has more than doubled in the last 50 years, and so you would expect those who claim to be adept at navigating such an environment would become commensurately paid with their scarcity, whether or not they end up delivering.

The problem with the Shift index is that right away it assumes that return on assets is a valid measure of what has happened in the overall economy. Even in the linked article it is argued that short-termism is the cause of this. If short-term profit seeking was an overall negative to the consumer, you wouldn't see lowered cost, higher quality, and more varied and novel goods as you have been seeing for the past 50 years. Literally all of these products are a direct and traceable result to short-term profit chasing and competitive advantage seeking. So even though you don't see the results in return on assets, you do see an enormous net good for the consumer.