IMHO, the first step toward protecting our markets would be to eliminate the pitfalls inherent to union influence. What I am referring to are the costs of work stoppages and overhead absorption due to incompetent and/or unmotivated workers. These factors play a key role in the viability of a business, particularly manufacturing firms.
God gave man instinct. One facet of instinct is the will to survive and to better one's situation. I believe that organized labor suppresses this instinct by attempting to make everyone equal. As I said in an earlier post to this thread, attitude as well as aptitude should determine altitude. When you take away the need for these, the machine will most definitely break down.
I agree that eliminating work shoppages and poor workers is desirable. But I don't know that it is desirable to completely eliminate unions to do that. I also agree that unions can have a negative effect on motivation and morale.
But the issue still gets back to the question of: are there scenarios where labor economics results in undesirable scenarios.
In addition to the dust bowl scenario, I sometimes wonder if a large part of the economic wealth that we have is due to having the majority of our people participate in the economy at an adequate level. In other words, if labor economics drove the wages too low to where the majority of people are just subsisting then nobody is buying luxury items. That could create a situation where whole industries never had the impetus to start. The economy could be a much less diverse place and therefore a much less rich economy.
Would labor economics result in that? I don't know. The fact is we've had labor unions for a long time. We have had minimum wage laws for a long time. Those forces raise the average wage level and in that sense are good for the economy. In an economy with full employment, you could argue that neither would be needed. But in an economy with excess labor, I think those serve to help buffer the economy.