Living-wage protesters jam Post Office Square

By adamg on Mon, 06/11/2018 - 4:54pm

Post Office Square shut by protesters. Photo by Danielle Fox.

What started as a protest in front of the State House for a living wage turned into a sit-in in Post Office Square than now has traffic throughout downtown jammed.

Neighborhoods:

Downtown

Topics:

Politics

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Ad:

Comments

It's shameful

By Tim Mc.
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 5:12pm

that minimum wage is not pinned to some combination of economic indicators, so people have to fight for a higher minimum wage every couple years just to stay where they are (that is, keep up with inflation.) :-(

One suggestion

By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 10:12pm

Pin it to productivity.

Productivity has skyrocketed in recent decades while wages stagnated.

Ummmm...

By Stevil
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 10:45pm

No.

Depends a little on your time horizon, but productivity of US workers has been relatively stagnant in the last 10 years or so. Wage atagnation goes back slightly longer, but not much

Economists don't quite understand why, but it's a statistical fact. Possinly due to a shift to a younger, less experienced workforce, but that is at best a hypothesis.

Wrong

By perruptor
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:29am

You're so wrong.

Productivity has grown 5.9x more than pay [since 1973]

Your beliefs are not facts.

Your own source shows a

By dm12
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 8:40am

Your own source shows a flattening in 2010.

Min wage

By bosguy22
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 8:45am

Was instituted in the '30's and was the 2017 equivalent of $4.50/hr. There's no justification for min wage being a "living wage", that was never its intent.

Do you just pull this crap out of your as* or what?

By whyaduck
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 9:00am

You need to go back and read about the why behind the minimum wage movement and those that fought for it (early progressives). Ya also might want to read about how the folks that worked in what was known as sweatshops did not make a livable wage way back then (i.e. that were making non livable wages), aside from working in dangerous and unsanitary conditions.

supply the necessary cost of living and maintain the workers..

By Anonymous
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 1:30pm

June, 1912: Set wage rates sufficient “to supply the
necessary cost of living and to maintain the workers in health.”

Inequality and the distribution of income

By Anonymous
Sat, 06/16/2018 - 7:39am

The impact of inequality on societies is now increasingly well understood;
higher crime, health problems and mental illness,
lower educational achievements, social cohesion and life expectancy.
Jump to 5 mins.
[youtube]rVFetg5OPN8[/youtube]

Social mobility has stalled since 1990s AKA 'American Dream'

I am not making a comment on

By dm12
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 9:27am

I am not making a comment on the min wage, just on the productivity rate, from the previous source.

Which does not show what you said

By perruptor
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 10:41am

The rate of increase in that period is less than previously, but it isn't a "flattening;" it's just a slightly slower increase.

See above

By Stevil
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 12:16pm

I am so right. You can prove almost anything in finance depending on time horizon.

The fact remains, wages began flattening shortly after the dot com bust/9-11. Productivity flattened and continues to stagnate for about the last ten years. Possible that flattening wages were a leading indicator of this, but point remains, you are only correct if you pick an irrelevant starting point (and you'll see wages correlated a lot better to productivity prior to 2000).

You didn't read

By perruptor
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 2:59pm

the linked article, did you? There's a nice graph that completely contradicts all the "facts" you've thrown out here. Also links to governmental and other sources. You're still wrong.

You haven't read the other research

By Stevil
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 7:56am

Have you?

There are substantial flaws in the methodology.

There is better analysis. Conclusion similar, just not as severe and timing more in line with what I posted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/0...

If your anslysis is true, living standards would be somewhat lower than 45 years ago and corporate margins would be almost double. Neither of those are true. Sherk's research much more closely resembles the observable reality of income, living standards and corporate profits.

Thanks for the link

By perruptor
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 9:43am

Too bad it's some op-ed writer regurgitating what a guy from the right-wing Heritage Foundation put out. Not a "study."

Because someone you don't agree with wrote it?

By Stevil
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 10:10am

And you believe that living standards have fallen 7% over the last 45 years leading to a 50% plus increase in corporate margins?

Because it's BS

By perruptor
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 10:40am

From a well-known ax-grinding source of BS.

And, no, I do not endorse your manure-based calculations.

Then....

By Stevil
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 10:47am

You are espousing the theory that 1+1=3.

Enjoy your fantasy world

By perruptor
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 11:09am

But leave me out of it.

Fantasy World?

By Stevil
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 12:34pm

Please explain to me now you can have a reduction in real wages over 45 years of 7% and an increase in standard of living (or are you arguing that the American standard of living is lower today than 45 years ago, even though we live in larger homes, spend proportionally less on basic needs and have transportation, leisure and medical and communication systems that we couldn't even fathom then? (including the mode of communication we are using at this minute))

Sorry

By perruptor
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 12:52pm

I'm not a psychologist. I can't possibly explain your delusions to you. that would take some professional help. Best of luck with that!

Then again

By Stevil
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 10:46pm

You could admit that you have no training or experience in economics. What I stated is not an opinion. It logically and mathematically must be true.the sum of the parts cannot be less than the aggregate.

Double post

By Stevil
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 12:18pm

Sorry, horrible reception here!

In today's news

By perruptor
Sat, 06/16/2018 - 9:09pm

For the biggest group of American workers, wages aren't flat. They're falling.

Today's Chicago Tribune.

Economists know why

By Capt. Obvious
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 9:42am

It's very simple: Wages have stagnated because workers lack bargaining power and influence within the government. Because over the past 35 years unions have been made out to be boogeymen, and bribery of elected officials by large corporations and the wealth has been made legal.

It ain't rocket science.

might look like this

By Anonymous
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 1:34pm

graph

Jerks

By Joe02132
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 5:14pm

No consideration for the people trying to get places like job interviews, medical appointments, Little League games, etc.

The cause might be noble, but don't mess with the lives of other people.

Social and Economic Justice Are All Well and Good

By Oscar Worthy
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 5:26pm

But when someone else's struggles for human dignity might interfere with my kids Little League game, someone's gotta stand up and speak out!

Fight The Power(less) !!

How would you feel if it was a cause you didn't support?

By anon
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 5:57pm

Like people blocking traffic to protest against abortion?

In that particular case?

By lbb
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 9:13am

I'd say there's a bright-line qualitative difference between advocating for someone's right to a living wage and advocating against half the population's ability to have access to a legal medical procedure.

Sometimes non-violent civil disobedience

By Anonymous
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 1:49pm

disrupts your day and makes the news without regard to the inconvenience it causes and sometimes it's designed to win your support like these non-violent direct actions at lunch counters by black students who wanted their countrymen to see the injustice
[youtube]Q5HISnAjz7U[/youtube]

at the time

By Shaz
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 2:47pm

1961 Gallup Poll:
Do you think 'sit-ins' at lunch counters, 'freedom buses,' and other demonstrations by Negroes will hurt or help the Negro's chances of being integrated in the South?

57% Hurt
28% Help
16% No opinion

it worked for 50 years

By Anonymous
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 8:36pm

Then the Roberts court began rolling back voting rights and access to higher education, and now we have Trump.

I always forget the part about how unpopular those protests were. Still people could see with moral clarity how wrong it was for the police to beat the people peacefully marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. News film was on national tv within hours of the beatdown.

You don't see that anymore

By perruptor
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 6:51am

You don't see cops beating peaceful demonstrators on TV any more. Not that it doesn't happen. Corporate news just won't show it to you. Closest you'll get is Fox News running some old riot footage with a report claiming the demos were violent.

So film it on your phone and

By anon
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 3:18pm

So film it on your phone and post it to Youtube yourself.

perp

By Anonymous
Sun, 06/17/2018 - 1:54am

True, we don't see police beating down protesters with night sticks like Bull Conner as often. PHOTO

I credit BPD for retrained use of lethal force and for protecting protesters during protest marches. I'm not as pleased with civilian command

We do see a lot more cell phone video from across the US of police excessive use of force.

Then.....

By anon
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 12:47pm

Then what you do is protest and block the cars coming out of the State House, City Hall, etc, not people who work hard to support their family. You don't make Jim or Sally get home an hour later because your are BS about minimum wage - stupid people.

What is your preferred method

By Luke
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 5:31pm

What is your preferred method of non violent protest?

So...

By Joe02132
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 5:51pm

Like most, I support different social causes.

However, I wouldn't block your street in the morning and prevent you from going about your life.

It's called respect for others.

So...what's your preferred

By Jedidude
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 6:17pm

So...what's your preferred method of non-violent protest?

How bout this

By Stevil
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 6:30pm

Get a job. There are now more job openings than jobs. Very few jobs, especially around here, even pay minimum wage. My friends in the restaurant biz can't even keep dishwashers at minimum wage and two people on minimum wage can even scrape by with all the govt support you can get as long as you dont have kids. There is a nationwide shortage of truck drivers if you can pass a drug test. Plumbers downtown gross $150 per hour. It costs $130 to have your AC unit serviced and more to have a chimney cleaned. Housecleaners that won't rob you blind make $25-35 per hour. There's always uber/lyft as a second job.

Look around, there's opportunity everywhere, even with minimal or no skills. Far more productive than laying in the street at rush hour.

This isn't a difficult question

By Luke
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 6:36pm

What is your preferred form of non violent protest? I'm honestly confused because the word respect is thrown around a lot these days. Kneeling is disrespectful. Blocking an in intersection is disrespectful. What is your preferred form on non violent protest. You just threw out a lazy response that is addressing their protest. Its fine if you want to disagree with the contents of the protest. But what is your preferred form of non violent protest?

What do people usually do?

By Stevil
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 9:33pm

Rally on the common
March and chant
Sit in
Boycott
Strike

Ghandi and MLK got a lot done without tying up major cities at rush hour. And at the end of the day, this is a silly thing to be protesting in this economy, especially around here.

Wanna protest? Get some training or a trade and don't take a minimum wage job from the teenagers. That IS the best form of protest in this situation.

This quite literally is a sit-in

By Luke
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 9:45pm

Its right there in the photo? Also if you think Ghandi and MLK "got a lot done" without inconveniencing people, I'd do a bit more research.

get a job? they have one

By Anonymous
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 1:59pm

this protest was by people who have jobs and find their wages are insufficient to pay their living expenses.

the history of labor organizing is based on one principle, capitalizing labor. As a block they can negotiate together for wages and demand a larger percentage of revenue or profit. that worked in Lawrence mills in 1912 and the auto industry. McDonald's shields profit via franchise system but it's a matter of will not ability to meet the demand.

Do Danish McDonald's workers really earn $21/hour?

get a job? they have one

By Anonymous
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 1:59pm

this protest was by people who have jobs and find their wages are insufficient to pay their living expenses.

Do Danish McDonald's workers really earn $21/hour?

No, a sit-in was politely

By anon
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 3:23pm

No, a sit-in was politely insisting on service and refusing to leave a restaurant that had discriminatory policies. It doesn't refer to creating any kind of obstruction where you happen to be sitting.

Except

By boo_urns
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 9:54pm

That's not a protest at all. That's the if you can't beat them join them mentality. Which, yeah, ideally people can and should advance their careers. You're just making it seem like it's incredibly easy to do. If it were, everyone would have already done it by now.

"the if you can't beat them join them mentality."

By Smart Arse
Mon, 06/11/2018 - 11:22pm

Yeah. Sounds good to me.

If you can't beat the workforce, join the workforce.

Point missed

By perruptor
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:36am

They are already IN the workforce. If they weren't, why would they bother to demonstrate for higher WAGES?

More smart, less arse, please.

You shouldn't cite Gandhi

By lbb
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 7:07am

...if you can't even spell his fucking name.

Not to mention that you're completely ignorant of the disruptive nature of his protests. You're just using the names of two revolutionaries to try to make an argument in favor of the status quo, and that's just laughable.

HA!

By Capt. Obvious
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 9:51am

"Ghandi and MLK got a lot done without tying up major cities at rush hour."

...do some research. The march to Selma was on a tuesday. The march on Washington (i.e. the "I have a dream speech) was a Wednesday. They blocked traffic and inconvenienced people. That's how people knew they were there.

Oh geez

By Dot net
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:02am

MLK never tied up major cities at rush hour? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_...

Governor Wallace denounced the march as a threat to public safety; he said that he would take all measures necessary to prevent it from happening. "There will be no march between Selma and Montgomery," Wallace said on March 6, 1965, citing concern over traffic violations. He ordered Alabama Highway Patrol Chief Col. Al Lingo to "use whatever measures are necessary to prevent a march".[55]

Ghandi tied up a highway, too: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gandhi...

On March 12, Gandhi set out from Sabarmati with 78 followers on a 241-mile march to the coastal town of Dandi on the Arabian Sea. There, Gandhi and his supporters were to defy British policy by making salt from seawater. All along the way, Gandhi addressed large crowds, and with each passing day an increasing number of people joined the salt satyagraha. By the time they reached Dandi on April 5, Gandhi was at the head of a crowd of tens of thousands.

There is a predictable effect of looking back on successful movement leaders and forgetting how their protests could be disruptive, and instead, look at them as people who moved a society somehow without annoying powerful groups or people.

Have you ever been to these places

By Stevil
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 12:00pm

I have

Neither montgomery nor rural India has much traffic even today. You can imagine what it was like in their contemporary times. Traffic was not an issue except as an excuse for racists trying to suppress the protests.

And the point is both had other greater disruptive objectives. Any disruption of traffic was a side effect. Hell, a group of blacks gatthering anywhere in the 50s and 60s was considered "disruptive".

Stop moving the goal posts

By boo_urns
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 1:01pm

"MLK never held up traffic."

"Well he did, but not in a city like Boston."

Where to next?

I think the big issue with "protests" is this:

By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 1:33pm

In theory I could get 10 of my friends to block traffic for (pick a cause) and not let anyone know of our intention for our protest. If my "cause" was inner city kids not getting sufficient medical treatment for asthma cause by industrial waste and political corruption (and this was actually an issue) I might get some attention for this noble cause. But what if I did it to bring attention to the government cover up for that Sandy Hook incident that never happened? Or what if I did it to bring attention to Hillary's crimes? In theory, I could do it for any reason and people would have to pay attention because I was blocking traffic in doing so.

Now MLK and Ghandi made it known that these protests were going on. They had thousands of people joining them. Authorities knew about the protests and could plan accordingly. There were no surprises and these events wouldn't have even happened if they didn't have support. But my 10 guys could do the same "protest" without the same support.

That is the big difference and is what pisses off people so much.

I dunno

By boo_urns
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 1:50pm

Even if that's true about past protests, I get the impression that even if this was announced, people would have still gotten tied up in traffic and we'd see a lot of the same people complaining.

Probably....

By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 2:10pm

I guess my main issue is that a small group protesting anything can cause a major disruption. At some point you will need to draw a line if people wanted to take advantage of this (lets say the Sandy Hook people did this tomorrow, and the LOCK HER UP people did it on Thursday).