[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532

[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107808741878766...

The second study is a survey of what employers say they were doing. It is not terribly surprising that they feel raising the minimum wage was bad.

I'm not saying raising the minimum wage was a slam dunk in Seattle or anything, but if we want to have an actual evidence-based discussion, let's not cherrypick papers. It's also worth noting that employers simply "taking their business elsewhere" is much easier if the minimum wage increase is highly local as it was in Seattle, which isn't the proposal most people are talking about.

And from that paper: "We attribute significant hourly wage increases and hours reductions to the policy." and "Approximately one-quarter of the earnings gains can be attributed to experienced workers making up for lost hours in Seattle with work outside the city limits."

Read the paper. It does not appear that the min wage of Seattle was a net positive for the workers or the city.

>The second study is a survey of what employers say they were doing. It is not terribly surprising that they feel raising the minimum wage was bad.

It's also not surprising that an increase in labor costs results in less labor being hired and an increase in prices.

Feel free to post papers that contradict the findings.

>let's not cherrypick papers

Agreed. Post papers if you think these were cherry picked and not representative of the outcome of Seattle min wage. You don't like the results I posted, which I think are representative (I've followed the academic lit on min wage for a long, long time), yet you don't post supporting evidence for your claims.

Simply type seattle minimum wage into Google scholar and look at the papers. I've found many with results similar to these, and none with the opposite claims.

For those following, the Seattle min wage seems consistent with what you'd expect from price floors: benefits for a smaller pool of workers at the cost of other workers priced out of work, increased prices, a decrease in labor hours, and some workers having to go outside the price floor (here, working outside Seattle) to make up the lost money.

> We should repeal every minimum wage law, yes. They were created a century ago with racist intentions, their effects are still racist and yet today they are defended as being "anti-racist."

Were the laws racist, or at least written by racists, possibly with racist intent? If so, I feel like the conversation might shift.

This is a bizarre way of looking at the world. The question is about the state of the world decades ago (were the laws written to further racist goals?). Yet you posit that the answer to this question might have some effect in the future. It's an excellent way to deflect from facing facts; suggesting that somehow we couldn't have known about what happened. We can, though. It's trivial to look up the history of minimum wage (without even checking Wikipedia, though, I'm sure it has a censored version of the history so you'll have to look elsewhere). Why do we get to deflect the consequences of the past to the future, to a "might", to a mere "shift"?

Minimum wage is and always has been a way to keep minorities from getting jobs by carefully drawing a line - and redrawing it, so the whole racist enterprise has surely been up and running this whole time - to be just above where it's worthwhile to hire people with poor job history (a proxy for minorities, just redlining with wages). As the economy improves of course this line has to be drawn higher and higher because it becomes more and more economically viable to make risky hires.