The minimum wage hike to $15 was only in Seattle.
> In Seattle it didn't.
The cite did not break out Seattle data from the region.
> In propaganda
It's propaganda to cite statistics for a region when only one part of the region is being discussed.
Yeah, not that one. The one I cited by the UK low pay commission where it found a minimum wage hike was accompanied by a 11% drop in profits and a slight increase in prices (and even then only in the food service industry).
I doubt that anybody has studied the profit drop in Seattle. As an economist, it pays not to look too closely at certain topics and that is definitely one of those topics. It would not help your employability to study that topic at all.
Your employability goes up, however, if your research helps to find results that restaurant associations or "walmarts" with a bit of cash to splash around might find useful.
David Neumark and William Wascher are keenly aware of this, which is probably why they took Card and Krueger's landmark study and twisted it until it showed employment going down after a minimum wage hike.
What happened was exactly in line with the papers I cited predicted. 1. Large profit hit, 2. small price hike, 3. no effect on employment (employment actually went up, possibly for other reasons).
The reason you believe what you believe is because you swallowed a lot of kool aid. The people concerned about 1 happening want us to think will 3 happen. In Seattle it didn't. In well run studies it didn't.
In propaganda and poorly run economic studies it does.