Do you not see how you’re making the same error he is? First, you used his work, and provided a counter-interpretation, which wasn’t representative of what it suggested. In doing so, it simply seemed that you’d miss understood what you were reading. That’s generally how it came across. So, I called you on that, and your defense was an article written by a person with a history of working for liberal campaigns and institutions, seeking to undermine the UW research on the basis of bias…by revealing the chief researcher’s history of working for conservative think tanks…This is an odd, but common habit people seem to have, criticizing the person next to you for doing exactly what you’re doing. The truth, at the end of the day, is that there are too many contributing factors to the employment of low wage workers, and a small enough sample size of data, that there isn’t anything to talk about yet. What you’re all doing is showing correlation while failing to prove causation. If I were a betting man, I’d wager that this wage increase is a placebo, and in time, will result in no net effect. Subsidies for necessities and compulsory profits sharing are the only possible true remedies, subsidies respond to shortages as they are, rather than creating a broad-stoke guess regarding what “might” be a living wage, and profit sharing would reflect the actual performance of the economy. Minimum wage is a big, dumb animal.