Very good point.
#1 IMO, yes unions are partly responsible for every problem (seriously). In their heyday they grossly interfered with market forces -- after doing great things for labor.
#2 IMO market forces should (more or less) set executive and labor wages.
The topic of market forces is definitely germane to your suggestion IMO and interference can be two-way. And "unions" are not limited to labor, IMO.
I would ask what of the interference with market forces today that affects solely labor wages; to wit, a domestic labor glut and labor arbitrage?
Why say interference and how did it happen?
IMO due to non enforcement of immigration laws the labor glut is artificial. Did it just happen that there is virtually no enforcement? I don't think so. It's what business and both political parties wanted.
Adding to the glut of labor, what of labor arbitrage? Mostly it is due to improved transportation and IT-enabled cross-border outsourcing.
But there is also taxpayer-backed cheap risk insurance and other government-sponsored services provided to corporations to encourage doing business over there.
That too is a business / two-party endeavor (union?). I think that it's fair to say that "globalization" shifted into high gear during the Clintons' administration.
I sort of hate the word fair, but is it "fair" that business and both parties have seemingly (IMO) moved beyond being Americans?
Are we on the road to a Davos world led by a union of business and both parties?
You noted above that "Since the US is no longer, and never will be again, a closed market, our companies cannot raise prices to cover these [labor] expenses."
I think that this is all germane though somewhat wider than the dollar value of executive v. labor wages alone. But I appreciate your point about focusing on someting so we can all at least agree to disagree on something. Then move on.
(I don't recall seeing anyone asking for a "closed market" mostly it's stop free tradin' away technology, wealth, and production, especially to China. Stick with what has always been good for us, real free trade.)
Why would I? You're asking me to aggree that your assumption is reasonable; but, you haven't established that it is. Nor have you established that Unions twist the arms of non-union companies to offshore. One truly wonders how that works, exactly. I won't agree to something you can't establish. And as I've noted, when foreign labor is cheaper than minimum wage, it's hardly the fault of unions that businesses are chosing foreign labor. It's predictable and our forefathers
understood that. They understood a great deal - seeing the ruin mega companies would inflict on the country and the like.
But, I suppose our founders are now all socialist/marxist/communist because they largely decry what you're pushing.
As for using the phrase "treason lobby", I'm sure you don't like it. I on the other hand prefer to use language apt to the task in making my points. I'm sure the dems don't like it when Coulter applies it to them; but, it makes a salient and valid point that they won't face up to any more than you will. On the other hand, sometimes you can shame people by displaying their wrongdoing for them. Some are beyond shame. I'm aware it is useless for people beyond shame. But it helps us to see who they are.. at long last.