Something's not Trickling

I'm not conversant in supply side economics in the same way that I'm not clear as to how creationism can explain the fossil record as resulting from a few thousand years of natural history.
I do know that supply siders make two fundamental claims:

1. Cutting tax rates will lead to higher tax revenues.
2. Cutting tax rates for the wealthiest among us will benefit all of us.

I discussed the canard that cutting taxes results in higher tax revenues in a series of posts in July, prompted by blogger and Club for Growth enthusiast Dave of First State Politics.
As for the fairy tale that helping rich people get even richer benefits all of us, we have today's news about real wages lagging behind productivity in the last few years as reported in the New York Times:

The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.
As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s.

Now trickle down economics makes the claim that benefits to the richest among us will trickle down, as it were, to the rest of us, given enough time. I would think that five or six years would be enough time for this ostensibly rational phenomenon to be evidenced in economic statistics. So why hasn't it happened?