And in places where there are REAL worker protections, like the Scandinavian countries, a Big Mac is cheaper than in Seattle, potentially partly because employers aren’t responsible for healthcare.

But my point is that the commenter overstated the impact of paying higher wages dramatically.

Is this what McDonald's has to charge in New York and Seattle to be lucrative, or is it what they want to/can charge and can now excuse with "our workers are being paid living wages"?

Sounds like no matter what the result is, you get your preferred conclusion. In other words:

big macs costs significantly more in locations that have high labor costs -> "they're just using the high labor costs an excuse to charge more!"

big macs costs slightly more in locations that have high labor costs -> "see! that proves we should raise minimum wages!"

None of the “significantly more” is even remotely close to the cost claimed by the original comment. That’s the problem here - you can’t keep saying “but but but” to clear refutation. The assertion was simply false.