The gist of this editorial is, "That study said that the minimum wage hike led to businesses laying people off, but that didn't happen where I work at Domino's, we're hiring." And since she brought it up, it does seem like for certain businesses, like pizza delivery, the cost of the hike (paying their employees more money) would be offset by the benefit (Seattle's poor people having more money to spend on pizza). A business with low-income workers but no low-income customers, e.g. a company that cleans yachts, would see the opposite.

And lo and behold, it turns out that one of the main criticisms of this study is that they excluded most large employers and chains (on the theory that if a chain restaurant in Seattle hires people or fires people, it's more likely to be caused by some external effect than by the wage hike). And since OP brought it up, it does seem like the chains that this study excluded would be likely to be exactly the sorts of employers who would see more benefit than cost. That's not evidence that the study is wrong, period, end of story, but it is intriguing, and I can't find any suggestion on the study's website that they attempted to account for this.

It's easy and satisfying to dismiss things out of hand for being anecdata, but sometimes you miss interesting perspectives in so doing.