Although Tucker complains about the companies he considers to be making too much money and desires them to be forced to pay their employees more he fails to indicate that these large corporations pay their employees more than most other similar companies who are smaller. They get more than minimum wage. They are often provided more opportunities to advance than in other companies.
The problem with their wage not covering their expenses might be the employees living beyond their means. It is also a taxation problem. When all the taxes that individuals pay amount to more than 75% of earned income that impoverishes them more than the wage they earn. If taxation was reduced people would be able to afford food and housing. Tucker makes it sound as though the owners of these large corporations should barely earn more than those low skilled employees that work for them. Although the owner of the company might be worth 50 billion most of that net worth is tied up in the business they own. If they went out and spent all of that money the business would fail and they would be broke.
Millions of people who don't work directly for these businesses have jobs suppling needs of the business and products. As long as the focus is on how can force be used to make rich people have less everyone will have less. He is right about one thing, America is not a free market economy and hasn't been for more than 100 years. His suggestions if enforced will continue to ensure that the people are enslaved by their government.

The thriving Trump economy is forcing all of these big employers to rethink their employee treatment, as the labor market tightens. If even a little deregulation and loosening the tax grip on the economy produces these results, think of how much more advantage the workers gain in a truly free market, with the heavy hand of government interference lifted.

I have always thought that we should return to community involvement: meaning we spend our efforts, time and what ever abundance each has that may want to contribute to those in a pickle so long as they want a hand up and not hand outs.
Thereby returning the state and federal governments to their original purpose...protection of rights under the constitution and protection from threats and radical influences from outside the country.

Most pundits on either side only deal with the surface. They can't delve deeper into any subject because they have never learned what they are talking about. In order to know what to make of the squirming of politicians so they can determine right from wrong they need a solid background in economics and history. If they are ignorant on these subjects, they are at a loss as to how the judge the good or bad of a given action or pronouncement.

Such is the price of intellectual inconsistency. The cost of freebie government giveaway programs should be borne by the "givers", not unrelated parties like companies.

Making companies pay for the social programs is effectively giving all employees raises which will increase prices the companies charge.

FOX is "conservative" compared with MSM, but certainly NOT consistent.

Carlson is wrong. The author of the article is correct. End the welfare programs, close the borders, and deport all the illegals, now.
[sarcasm follows]
I know the con-gress will rush out to do my bidding since they work for me.

I have been predicting since early 2016 that if Bernie Sanders and people like this commentator figure out they're on the same side we're in big trouble. It just takes a charismatic leader who can overcome the fact that they're split into two groups that hate one another without realizing how similar they are.

The article accompanying the video is terrific.

....and therein lies the failure of conservativism...no consistent, logical philosophy...they think they can
"manage" big govt better than the socialists...

It seems that "conservatives" will do anything rather than just stand up for individual rights. But to do that, and make it stick, they would have to reject altruism--and ,eventually, "revealed" religion. And that is why we need to have this Galt's Gult site.

Interesting scenario: The taxpayers subsidize the businesses of the well-connected. That is what he's talking about here. Who can blame the fat cats?

Your definition of "reasonable" self-interest may differ from mine. When I once offered mild praise for the founder of Tesla here, some lambasted the point that he had bilked the government of a lot of money. I didn't react the same to that. I almost admire the ability to do that. Remember when the AIG employees went to resort spas right after getting the big bailout? My brother said, "Hell, they just bilked the government out of all that money for their company. They should be rewarded!" Made me laugh. He was right. Sure...eventually the nation will fold up and most of the people will be eating out of garbage cans. To the victor go the spoils...No investment matches the ROI of money spent greasing law makers...

I watched Tucker's interview, last night, and sat in absolute SHOCK when I heard him agree with his interviewee. Really...government should "force" employers to pay higher wages, when the real solution is to address the issue of government subsidies.

Wow...I don't know if he'll ever recover from that one.

I rate Tucker 6 on a 1-10 for his commentary , style and now I might reevaluate , thanks mshupe.

Tucker brought Amy Peikoff to debate him on this topic . Tucker said to her that the wealthy have an obligation to take care of the less fortunate.
He seemed stunned when Amy asked him why they had an obligation ? He mumbled the Christian Judeo tradition and decency requires it.
He then talked over his guest like a liberal.

At age 24, I was Exec. Secy to the Exec V.P. of what became one if not the largest insurance group in the US. Mr EVP asked me what I thought of the newly formed Salary Committee. My response, 'there are no women on it'. I was appointed. When the members of the committee asked me what I thought of their proposal on salaries, my response 'Your best suggestion for ladies is $50. you wouldn't offend a man with less than $100! What nice salary adjustments the ladies got!

No No! Not Tucker too! What is wrong with people??