Ok, you linked a study, but you haven't read it, have you?

That study refers to minimum wage used up to the point in time the study was conducted. So, that is the context.
Worse: as you may read in the conclusion, it is hard to sum up the studies conducted on the subject matters in years, so they only show a "metastudy" that seems to support what you say -: so, EVEN in that specific context, there's no "absolutely" and no "proof", and the matter remains open to debate. As it usually happens in science and especially in economics, you know.

The study does not say anything about the future or about using minimum wage policies in general. So you simply cannot state: "When you take into account that there is no discernible correlation between increased minimum wage and increased unemployment,". That statement is not a logic consequence of the study you linked. This fact is, indeed, indisputable.

As to the graph you posted above:

"no correlation" as indicated by R-Square does not mean "there is no correlation in reality," but rather that no correlation was made evident in the study. Correlation may still exist and we may be missing information. You use the R-square to look for positives, when it comes to social sciences, not to look for negatives.

This is like stating: I've never seen aliens so there's no life on other planers.
That's false logic.
Instead: I've seen an alien, so there is life on other planets, works and makes sense.


So, I agree no correlation was found. One may still believe there is, and that is perfectly reasonable.

From an economic/scirntific standpoint, that graph is of no use if you want to make your point: where's "time"?
One may argue that while the increase in minimum wage was causing unemployment, a growing economy offset that trend and we actually saw an increase in employment. Again, that chart without context tells me virtually nothing.


Finally, a statement such as "A Minimum Wage has No Discernible Effect on Employment" per se, out of contest, makes no scientific / economic sense. It is possibly a good title for a paper, but you have to read the paper, then, to understand what it really means, if it does meany anything at all.

If I set a minimum wage to $1000/hr, will that have an effect on employment? Still no correlation? If I increase the minimum wage by .001%, will it make a difference?


Minimum Wage effect should be measured in as specific economic context. What is the average wage in an economy? What is the average wage trend? What is the distribution of various wage levels in society - as the average per se tells me little or nothing yet? Is the avg wage increasing, decreasing, and why is it? How's the wage of various segments of society changing? What are the causes for employees being hired at a minimum wage? What would the labor market set those wages at, if there was no minimum, and why is there that specific delta, and not more, nor less?

The truth is that without *at least* that analysis depth, you can argue anything and its opposite, and use such arguments to support your political view and criticize different ones. Whatever your political views are.