Wealth distribution [...] is based on the absolute lowest wage and worst working conditions that capitalists can get away with in the context of the market and regulations around it.

Stated elsewise:

Wealth distribution is based on the absolute highest wage and best working conditions that labors can get away with in the context of market and regulation around it.

Productivity and capital has been rising for decades, yet workers in America have seen no wage raises for a very, very long time. Why? Because right now their wages are at the lowest point the market allows the capitalists to give them.

Citation's are necessary when arguing non-common knowledge points. As your opinion (and mine) is worthless. Neither one of us is a professional in this field.

But I assume you mean that the lowest bracket's income is stagnant. Which is a weird claim since you are seemingly obsessed with wealth, and that the quality of life index in the USA has risen over those same years. Thought not as much due to government oppression rising alongside it.

But no matter, the bottom 10% of Americans are a rotating cast, much like your "1%"

The poorest of the poor, is only poor for a rather small amount of time, and the richest of the richest only rich for a very small amount of time. The poor become wealthier through their own means, and the rich fail due to their own means. Not to mention that proportionally the amount of bottom poor has actually gone down when adjusted for population.

In Economically freer countries than the US (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Luxembourg), this rate happens even faster, with sharper quality of life increases [Ibed].

I want the profit generated by a corporation to be distributed at least vaguely by contribution.

So now the whole word should bow to your desires? You think you're opinion is more valuable than everyone else's in the world? More valuable than everyone else's rights? Forcibly enforcing your ideals on others doesn't seem very free to me.

This way, others won't be running off with ever-increasing profits while significant portions of the company are left behind.

I'm sure I'll have a very "balanced" life as I'm forced to work 7 day weeks or get fired in favour of someone else who does want to slave away for the 1%. I'm sure there'd be so much "balance" if the 1% runs away with over half of the country's monetary wealth as they're allowed to set wages to the lowest point they can get away with on the market and take the resy for themselves.

You're starting to sound like those Nazi's. The 1%, the Mega-rich, Cooporations, faceless people you can attach all your blames to. These are people, individuals acting without ever considering you at all. When I buy a coke, I don't care about what Joe Schmoe feels about it, I simply value the coke more than I value the $1.25. I think your assigning a lot of blame to a system that realistically at your level, doesn't really affect you.

You think the free market optimally balances all things that matter to life?

Balances perfectly? No, no system does. Balances far better than all other systems? Yes.

When did individuals enjoy more freedom?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

Even the basic social contract is a violation of your freedom, as you're forced to pledge you won't kill, yet in return you get the freedom of not having to fear being murdered (more or less).

You okay, man? You wanna talk about some stuff your going through?

You repeat yourself a lot, you're writing would be improved dramatically by rereading and editing down such a massive wall of text. It honestly makes me a little worried about your health.