Even Alec Baldwin gets it right sometimes. The anger-prone actor got delayed last Wednesday by street-clogging protesters demanding a $15-an-hour minimum wage and immediately took to Twitter.

“Life in NY is hard enough as is,” he tweeted. “The goal is to not make it more so. How does clogging rush hour traffic from 59th St to 42 do any good?”

It doesn’t do any good, in fact — it’s a public temper tantrum, posing as some sort of proto-revolutionary rally. It’s not going to convince anybody of anything — except that the people blocking traffic were feeling their oats.

Which is no way to run a city, as Baldwin also noted.

“NY’s ethos dissolves every day that individuals or groups put their needs/goals ahead of everyone else’s,” he wrote. “There are ways to rally people to your cause without inconveniencing an entire City.”

Baldwin’s a bit slow there. Inconveniencing people — wasting their time and costing them money — is the point. The protesters believe their needs are more important than anyone else’s. So they have every right to make others suffer.

Never mind that the whole fight for a $15 wage is being fueled and funded by labor unions that are themselves flush with cash, thanks to mandatory dues. If not for union agitation, in fact, it’s not clear that many folks would even show up to these street-theater shindigs.

Remember, minimum-wage workers are often part-timers. Many aren’t even unionized. But a wage hike for these people will push up unionized wages as well, so the unions are behind it with everything they’ve got.

Unlike Baldwin, however, some people just don’t get it. Over at The New York Times, analyst Rachel Swarns mustered a healthy dose of sarcasm Monday to slap . . . the actor.

At first, she pretended to sympathize with him: “Dear Alec Baldwin,” she began, “I threw everything aside to write to you as I heard about your troubles.”

It was clear, though, that she couldn’t care less about his “troubles.” Or anyone else’s.

Funny thing is, Swarns quickly descends to unintentional self-satire — by comparing the union-funded protest to the “Bloody Sunday” march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., 50 years ago.

That’s right: Squeezing higher wages from fast-food outlets and other small businesses is supposed to be on the same moral plane as the drive for basic equality, fairness and civil rights in the racist South.

Back then, she notes, “not a single correspondent” asked about the traffic disruptions caused by the protest.

So what’s Baldwin’s problem?

To folks like Swarns, you see, a $15 minimum is more moral than New York’s current $8.75-an-hour rate. The rationale? $15 is more than $8.75. So: more money for workers.

Just ask city Comptroller Scott Stringer. His new report proves it. (Yes, $20 an hour would be more moral still; no, the fact that higher wages also means less money for employers is not relevant.)

Of course, what’s moral depends on who comes away with what. If a $15 wage floor leads to businesses closing or hiring machines to replace more costly workers, leaving folks jobless and earning nothing, those folks might not find the situation so “moral.”

Baldwin was right: Labor’s drive for higher wages doesn’t justify tying up a city. But that’s not life in New York. The actor needs to understand: Here, if you want something progressive-sounding (or if a union does), you can make others suffer in an effort to get it.

Heck, when Occupy Wall Streeters took over Zuccotti Park a few years ago, “inconveniencing” countless folks and penalizing businesses that lost a fortune, many couldn’t even tell you exactly what they were protesting for.

Baldwin has to learn something else, too, about how these protesters think: While they can block traffic for their own cause, no one — not even he — has a right to complain about their selfishness.