Is the HOR too small?

5 facts:
1.) The HOR has had 435 members since 1911, over 100 years.
2.) The HOR started off with 65 members in its most vintage times of 1789.
3.) The HOR number of reps had changed due to change in population of the cencus, adding more members and hence, adding representation (Essential to Constitutionalism).
4.)  The average U.S. congressional district now contains roughly 640,000 citizens, as opposed to about 200,000 in 1911.
5.) Ever since the cencus has revealed a larger population, the number of reps has not yet increased, showing mis/underrepresentation (reason for controversy on the issue).

5 questions:
1.) If the same people are basically being elected into the house of reps. due to imcumbency... why wouldn't they just add members to get new people on there?
2.)  If most people in the HOR are wealthy, doesn't a trend appear that more wealthy people usually "earn" a spot?
3.)  How many reps should there be in the house. according to the cencus population count?
4.)  Even if there is room for 200 more seats in the HOR does it really make a difference if the 200 people were added... most of the reps have similar mindsets anyways...
5.)  Would less people run for HOR if they weren't making decent money.. or even less if their power/authority was questioned and lessened because of additional representors activity..

Opinion:  Definately not, 435 is a good amount, if not too many!  We don't need to complicate things by adding more people and salaries to the simply misunderstood group, we just need more diversity and real people who are willing to properly represent EVERYONE in the US.