Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Ted Rall

Comments (24) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. pbarnrob

    pbarnrob said, almost 4 years ago

    If it had kept pace with inflation, the minimum would be some $21.50/hr.
    How can you work full-time, and still be below the poverty line? And the CEO pulls in (even a few) millions? (Yeah, yeah, tell me again how his brain is gold and he’s worth it. Now pull the other one!)

  2. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 4 years ago

    @pbarnrob There are a few of the very wealthy, such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates that seem to realize that this same kind of steadily increasing difference between the average citizen, and the 1% or so at the top of the economic food chain, has happened before.

    It happened in 17th century France when the landed aristocracy literally owned everything, and the average citizen existed in total poverty. The result was the French Revolution. Then the aristocracy paid a terrible price while being introduced to Mr. Guillotine!

    What some of our more wealthy and ultra conservative citizens do not seem to realize, is that it is that very middle class that is the buffer that keeps the more poverty stricken from forming such a revolt in this country as well as other industrialized states throughout the world. This is especially true in this country where over 100 million people are armed.

    Now, I am NOT advocating that what happened in 17th century France happen here.
    But it might just be advisable for the wealthy in this country to do everything in their power to see to it that a viable middle class thrived in this country!!

  3. omQ R

    omQ R said, almost 4 years ago

    Oh, where’s Gerald? I’m sure he’d like a word with Rall about this. He’d probably Wax his ears with no uncertain libertarian terms. Or is that Wax lyrically?

  4. edinbaltimore

    edinbaltimore GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Michael: Best sarcasm I’ve seen in a long time. And I agree. Neither side currently believes in getting many people out of poverty. Dems need their votes, and Repubs need the “job creator” votes.

  5. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, almost 4 years ago

    I give capitalism another 20 years max.

  6. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago

    Minimum wage was, at its onset, not meant to be a ‘living wage’. It was a wage to be paid to teenagers and college students still living at home or for an adult working to supplement the wages of the primary wage earner in the home. It has quickly evolved to a source of paying for rent, food, heat/cooling, healthcare, clothing, etc. for households with children. To a large degree, I blame the loopholes written into the various free trade agreements that make it so profitable for US companies to make products overseas to sell back to the USA. That was not what Mr. Reagan told me NAFTA would do, but it is what has happened.
    Mr. Rall’s cartoon reminds me the state of my childhood, Mississippi, has finally completed all processes to ratify the amendment ending slavery in the USA. They actually did it in 1995, but the paperwork wasn’t properly filed until Abraham Lincoln’s bday this very month and year.
    The gears of gov’t move very, very, VERY slow.

  7. jrmerm

    jrmerm said, almost 4 years ago

    You really want to reduce unemployment and increase the return to labor? Round up and deport all illegals and limit legal immigration to a few highly qualified and motivated legal residents. Illegals are the new slaves: underpay them, use/abuse them, mistreat them, who cares? I do.

  8. packratjohn

    packratjohn said, almost 4 years ago

    Yeah, and they almost lost a $400 hand car! Truly hilarious film, and certainy had fun with the stereotypes of the times. (BTW, they finally accepted the Irish…)

  9. californicated1

    californicated1 said, almost 4 years ago

    Actually, Minimum Wage is the lowest amount of money than an employer can legally get away with paying an employee and it really doesn’t matter what that employee does, because if they bring the employer a million-dollar idea that makes the employer a lot of money, the only legal obligation that the employer really has to the employee is that they be paid the least amount of money possible.

    And that is where the Minimum Wage comes in, protecting the employee from getting ripped off by their employer, because if your employer could get away with not paying you for the work you do for them, they would.

    And if you think that isn’t happening out there, work in an “on-call” capacity for your employer, where you are basically sitting and waitng for a call to come in and that you may be in a legal status called “waiting, to be engaged” as opposed to “engaged, to be waiting”.

    And the distinction in those two terms is that the latter is compensable time at regular time rates according to the US Department of Labor and the courts, while the former is not compensable, meaning that your employer can ask you to sacrifice your time on-call for them and get away with not paying you for it.

    And when we deal with a workplace situation where there is such a thing as “telecommuting” and “work from home” out there, there will always be this “gray area” out there where employers will look to getting away with exploiting the labors of their employees without compensating the employee, or even compensating the employee adequately for that labor and for that time—time that the employee set aside from their own lives and families and sacrificed to the employer, that the employee will never get back and never be paid for.

  10. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    I’m going to stick up for lma this time. The line was Mel Brooks’, not lma’s. I’d call it satire in the tradition of Swift’s A Modest Proposal, in which he suggested the Irish could solve their problems of food shortage & overpopulation by eating their babies.

    “Blazing Saddles” was satirizing how little value African Americans had, even in post slavery times. Brooks wasn’t just making fun of 1870s cowboys, he was making fun of attitudes that still existed in the 1970s.

  11. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago


    “if your employer could get away with not paying you for the work you do for them, they would.”

    I wonder if the increase in ‘contract labor’ has something to do with this. Easier to stiff a 1099 contractor than it is to stiff a regular employee… Nah! That would be unethical.

  12. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    The taxpayer subsidies help.

  13. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    @Uncle Joe

    “Easier to stiff a 1099 contractor than it is to stiff a regular employee… Nah! That would be unethical.”

    Outside contractors have always been an employment “issue.” The rules governing status of a 1099 sub-contractor vs an employee are pretty clear cut. Many people tried paying people as sub-contractors instead of as employees and the labor law (at least in California) came down on them hard. Many tried to pay an individual as a private contractor to avoid an employer having to pay matching payroll taxes, unemployment and workman’s comp. About 90% of the “1099 group” failed the basic rules of being a sub-contractor:

    Does the contractor have more than 1 business as a client?
    Do they solely work at the business in question?
    Do they have insurance coverage?
    Do they work principally with their own tools?
    Do they have a separate business location (other than their home)?
    A great majority of the businesses trying to pay individuals as a 1099 sub were ruled against and fined, charged back payroll taxes and workman’s comp premiums. The feds set most of the standards and individual states usually added to the “rules.” As such, the big wave of people trying to take advantage of self employment benefits dropped off dramatically.

    I’m sure your all hot to read the detail of what I posted, it’s in the Pub. 15 (Circular E) of the IRS code. Great insomnia reading.


  14. William Bednar

    William Bednar GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    None of the characters in our little play is factoring in the cost of the slave(s) to begin with. Besides, the point of buying slaves it that the slave owner DID NOT PAY his slaves. The slave owner just works the slave(s) to death and then buys new ones. So, unless Ted is trying to equate gainful employment (the dollar) to slavery (the whip), then the cartoon makes no sense. If Ted is making such a case, he should try out the difference (between the dollar and the whip) on his own back!

  15. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Another tangent on history. One of the reasons slavery went on as long as it did was not because there wasn’t a call for the end on the humanitarian -civil rights issues. There were people calling for the end to slavery (the Abolitionists) as early as the 1830’s. It was those greedy cotton mill owners in the North that politically “kept kicking the can down the road.” For many years they contended that it would be “disastrous” to the North’s economy if they ended slavery and impacted the cheap cotton from the South. Of course many failed to mention that wages paid at the North’s cotton mills were one small step above slavery.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (9).