In this case, the relevant claim is the claim by minimum wage opponents that the unemployment rate and the minimum wage are positively correlated. Seattle's situation does NOT imply that a $15/hr minimum wage decreases unemployment (if someone were to make that claim, then your quip would apply), but it DOES suggest that a $15/hr minimum wage does not increase unemployment; this distinction is subtle but vital.
I don't think it's any stronger one way or the other. Correlation does not imply causation; it may suggest it, but there may be confounders. And lack of correlation does not imply lack of causation, because there may be confounders that mask results that would suggest causation.
Showing causation is hard and usually takes careful design of experiment with very good controls to eliminate any potential confounders, something that is not present in retrospective studies.
In the meantime, many Texas cities: http://time.com/80005/why-texas-is-our-future are building tons of affordable housing, even as superficially liberal cities like Seattle legislate it out of existence.
Maybe more of those would come in handy here in San Francisco too!
Probably more impactful in terms of population numbers is the similar "apartment block over water" which popped up in Seattle a few decades back and are still around. ~5 stories and over water is a lot more people than a row of houseboats.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Floating+Homes+Association...
It been a few years since I heard that though, it may be incorrect or outdated.
Yes, it's very slow going. But this is also a case of every time we "win," another 5,000 people show up with mountains of cash who can outbid everyone else in the region. Seattle is very popular as a place to live so we're trying to outrun both normal demand and the demand for housing that doesn't cost multiple thousands of dollars. It is a tough slog.
(By the way, Seattle has some of the most far-reaching renter protections in the state. Rent control is barred by state law but Seattle requires landlords to do a lot of things, provide a lot of notice, and limit rent increases a lot more drastically than any of our surrounding suburbs. Oh, and those suburbs aren't exactly building their own capacity, either. Good luck getting a large multi-residence project approved on Mercer Island or in Bellevue outside of the downtown core. Redmond is right out. Shoreline and Renton are doing better than most; Shoreline even pushed back against its own citizens to say "look, light rail stations deserve density around them so we're doing it, sorry nearby single-family homeowners.")
Once you start weaking some conditions (using a search and matching framework instead of contracting under complete information) and adding confounding variables (like economy wide-effects or consumer credit restritions), not only your conclusions might change, but you might actually get a better model. Academics have some grasp of this and are much more subdued in their conclusions, specially when coming from pure theory. Pundits, however, are paid to be clueless. And I think this is the true insight of this submission.
First, "unemployment rate" is extremely subjective, with the Bureau of Labor listing 6 different possible measures that all fit the definition for "unemployment rate" [http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm]. Not devaluing your results, but numbers reported online should be taken with a gain of salt.
Second, I don't think it's completely fair to use this as precedent for cases elsewhere in the country. Seattle's mean income ($75,331) is well above both Washington State's ($64,129) and the US's rate ($55,775) [http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/washington/seattle/]. The impact of adjusting minimum wage might be extremely understated.
No it isn't. At least not in this context or most contexts. While you are correct that there are multiple ways to measure unemployment, they are all objective measures. In addition to this, the colloquial usage of the "unemployment rate" refers to the U3 rate listed by the BLS.
Also, here's the full article this blog is quoting: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-21/doomsayer...
How so, if Seattle doesn't have a $15/h minimum wage? It'll only take effect in 2017, and even then, only for large employers that don't pay medical benefits. Under this law, the $15 wage will only be universal in 2021: http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/
[0] https://xkcd.com/552/ (alt text)
The hypothesis of the article is that the economic benefit of increasing minimum wage is mediated by improvement of the economy due to increased spending. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that particular point doesn't seem to contradict the article's premise.