Yes, there are edge cases. Yes, if you jack it to levels that are substantially higher than market rates there are negative effects.
None of that demonstrates that reasonable minimum wage laws, in the aggregate, cost jobs.
None of that demonstrates that reasonable minimum wage laws, in the aggregate, cost jobs.
When it is below market rate, it has no effect on jobs (or wages); it is essentially a law saying "keep doing what you are already doing".
So tell me, what is the purpose of minimum wage laws?
So basically, an insubstantial increase in minimum wage hides the harm in statistical noise. On the other hand, the (also insubstantially small) benefits will be completely visible.
Sounds like a political win to me: an invisible cost but a visible (albeit small) benefit.
Simply put, the economic effects of modest increases in the minimum wage floor are sufficiently complex that it is difficult to conclusively prove that there is a negative aggregate effect on unemployment.
Further, a useful analysis of the matter would also consider effects on labor force participation, distribution of wages, the poverty rate, entitlement expenses, the cost of living, incentives to attain education, incentives to work, consumer expenditures, prices, etc, in addition to unemployment.
Minimum wage laws cannot be usefully discussed by saying "increasing the minimum wage increase unemployment, it's that simple." Because it's not that simple. And even if that one variable did change that simply, it still would not be a useful policy analysis.
That said, I no longer get paid for presenting or analyzing policy, and your personal opinions have no effect on me, so I'm going to go spend my time doing something more useful and profitable.