Then what is there to complain about?
Basically, it amounts to society being dragged down by stupid crap that is pushed through by Big Money interests who are blind to opportunity cost. I want better economic opportunity for the people whose lives impact me in society, and I calculate that as being a lot of people.
By way of example, I'm friends with a married couple that spent TEN YEARS living paycheck-to-paycheck in apartments and struggling to pay off medical bills and recover their credit. Today, one of them is on permanent medical disability and the other is fighting cancer and working 60-hour weeks just to get by. They're only going to be rich if their family's land sells some major mining rights off which is, once again, luck (at least insofar as valuable minerals even being there is concerned). The difference I'm concerned with is in their social opportunities. If he wasn't having to work 60-hour weeks due to poor health coverage and atrocious labor support, I could spend more time with them, and they would be better able to appreciate the time as well.
You want the ability to hop seamlessly from job to job, have your wages increase no matter how low value your labor becomes, and get cheap health care paid by someone else.
Somewhat incorrect. I don't like job hopping; while the option needs to be there I prefer to exercise it rarely, because it can never be seamless.
And "overbearing legal environments for start-up businesses"? Maybe you should have thought about this before writing all the previous crap. It got sacrificed in order to get what you thought you wanted.
I'm referring specifically to patent warchests and cross-licensing agreements where big businesses can basically lawyer-nuke a start-up from orbit. Barrier to entry is increasingly prohibitive and does not result in a healthy competitive market. If they're not worried about extravagant legal costs, maybe small business can pay people what they're worth and new ideas could live up to their potential.
I would also prefer to pay my health care through direct insurance. Why should my employer be involved? Just pay enough to cover such things and let me handle that. One of the driving forces behind ridiculous health costs is that people are frequently isolated from the high cost of unnecessary procedures (or procedures where a much cheaper alternative is available). Let the costs be more visible and you will get a reduction in demand which will drive prices down. Unfortunately, employers get better deals and so it's not feasible to get decent insurance on your own where co-pays can reflect real costs to keep premiums down, so nobody does it if they have benefits available through employment, and the cycle perpetuates itself.
I also want some sanity to return to wage spectrums. I cannot fathom how a CEO, no matter how big the company is, deserves salary several HUNDRED times that of the hourly workers in the same company. Is his knowledge worth more? Ideally, yes (arguable in many specific cases, but I digress). Is it ever worth that much more? Maybe Elon Musk is, but not in most cases I'd say. I also think that if you want to pay a CEO more, it needs to be solely in company stock that has to hold long-term value before it can be sold so that you remove the incentive for slash-and-burn management. That way, the average person that wants to invest in a company doesn't get shafted by this quarterly-profit mentality that is destroying our pensions and investment opportunities for people without fiber-optic trading connections and algorithms written by math majors (to say nothing of the workers laid off and forced to find new jobs for these frivolous restructuring games). Want to talk about labor pools affecting wages? Why hasn't that brought CEO pay down? Because like I said, it's turning more plutocratic than capitalist.
TL;DR: I want the middle class, and upward-mobility of the low end, to return.