I like Tucker Carlson’s show on FOX News.
He is sharp, quick and funny but when he goes bad he goes real bad.
When he is off his laugh and the faces he makes are almost a caricature of the sound Tucker Carlson.
Last week, he went way off the deep end.
Carlson doesn’t think such immigration is good. Keating did a serviceable job but he is nowhere near in the league of Carlson when it comes to television debate.
Here’s the clip with my comments following.
The Carlson absurdities start right at the top. At the 45 second mark, he says that
The underlying assumption is that all immigrants are the same.
Where the hell does he get this idea from? Does he really think that people who hire the immigrants hanging outside a Home Depot have the same skill set as software programmers coming from India?
Does he really think people offering the Home Depot hanger outs a couple hours of work are doing so because they expect those immigrants to knock out a software program?
Carlson then goes on to claim that some people are “hurt” by immigrants. If by this he means that some people (immigrants) are getting particular jobs, he is correct. But the same could be said for Tucker’s employment. Because he was hired by Fox for a certain time slot and took the job someone else didn’t get the job.Should we ban Carlson from America because of this?
It doesn’t mean the American people, who aren’t working at the jobs where immigrants work, are sleeping on the sidewalk. Does Carlson think the person that was next in line to get his job is sleeping on the street?
Further, because an American isn’t willing to work for the same low wage as an immigrant means the American has more attractive alternatives, otherwise he would compete with the immigrant for the job.
Both find jobs. And this has to be the case if they want jobs. The only time this wouldn’t be the case is if wages were at zero, To think otherwise you is to deny the fundamentals of supply and demand economics. Markets clear, (I hasten to add there can be non-voluntary unemployment caused by minimum wage laws, but this is unemployment caused by government law not immigrants.)
That both work also implies an increase in general production. No one is going to hire someone unless they expect to gain more in product than what they can currently spend the money on.
Carlson then claims that China and Singapore have no immigration and they have spectacular growth but this means nothing with regard to the argument of immigration. This argument is just incorrect economic methodology. It could mean that China already has a