I'm not seeing your argument here. Let's think about the power of labor for a minute. I think we can both agree that it's heavily contingent on its replaceabil

I'm not seeing your argument here. Let's think about the power of labor for a minute. I think we can both agree that it's heavily contingent on its replaceability. When workers are difficult to replace they are naturally valued more highly. Doctors don't earn huge paychecks because there's some enormous value placed on their work, but rather because there are few doctors relative to demand and so each doctor has a very low level of replaceability. It's the same thing for jobs like athlete or actor. These workers become irreplaceable which gives them a tremendous amount of negotiating leverage. Even unions can easily be seen in the same framework. Unions work to treat a large number of employees as a single force whose entire source of power and leverage comes from the fact that that 'single' force is less replaceable. This is also why unions in fields where workers are easily replaceable generally don't work (without some sort of third party protection or more underhanded tactics) as they are unable to sufficiently reduce their level of replaceability. And I think we can also both agree that free migration would massively increase the replaceability of nearly all workers. I'm completely open to your idea, but I'm not seeing the logic!