>>Such as?
* Property values appreciating due to zoning restrictions constraining supply growth. This is the finding of a recent analysis that got significant attention: https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-gra...
* Increasing regulations resulting in suppression of competition and rent-extraction by an elite: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/working-paper-the-upwar...
* An increase in occupational licensing. 5% of occupations in 1950 required an occupational license. Today it's 29%. A higher prevalence of occupational licensing also contributes to inequality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing#Evidenc...
>A study from the Mercatus Center showed that occupational licensing can lead to greater income inequality, with each step needed to open a business leading to an additional 1.4% of national income going to the top 10% of earners.
>>Quick answer: Yes. If I create $200 worth of value for my company, and I'm paid $100 dollars and the other $100 is given to the company coffers, I'm underpaid relative to the value I create.
That is a deeply flawed Marxist understanding of economics. The $200 increase in company revenue is not solely due to the workers. If it were, the investors wouldn't be needed. The investment made by the investors is contributing enormous value, which is why investors are valued.
>>That does't tend to be how unions work.
Any rule that is broadly applied to the economy and regiments how labor is to interact with employers is going to be making simplifying assumptions about groups of workers/employers that treat them as homogeneous masses which would benefit from some set of cookie-cutter rules relating to some matter, be it collective bargaining, or union membership, or union dues.
An economy is far to complex to regiment with labor laws.
>>Some simply bargain for benefits that help the masses (grievance resolution, healthcare options, etc).
Regimentation does not help the masses. Mandatory minimum employment benefits like health options seem beneficial superficially, but in actuality they prevent individuals from negotiating the optimal trade off in benefits that maximize their well-being.
You don't increase the net pool of wealth in society when you make benefits mandatory. I might prefer a higher wage over guaranteed paternal leave. It's a trade off. One benefit has to come at the expense of another. Employers have a finite amount of wealth they can expend on labour.
Mandatory benefits are a case of treating individuals in society as cookie-cutter cut-outs, and applying a set formula to all of them. It's central economic planning, and it's destructive.