>the same team published a study a year later
And from that paper: "We attribute significant hourly wage increases and hours reductions to the policy." and "Approximately one-quarter of the earnings gains can be attributed to experienced workers making up for lost hours in Seattle with work outside the city limits."
Read the paper. It does not appear that the min wage of Seattle was a net positive for the workers or the city.
>The second study is a survey of what employers say they were doing. It is not terribly surprising that they feel raising the minimum wage was bad.
It's also not surprising that an increase in labor costs results in less labor being hired and an increase in prices.
Feel free to post papers that contradict the findings.
>let's not cherrypick papers
Agreed. Post papers if you think these were cherry picked and not representative of the outcome of Seattle min wage. You don't like the results I posted, which I think are representative (I've followed the academic lit on min wage for a long, long time), yet you don't post supporting evidence for your claims.
Simply type seattle minimum wage into Google scholar and look at the papers. I've found many with results similar to these, and none with the opposite claims.
For those following, the Seattle min wage seems consistent with what you'd expect from price floors: benefits for a smaller pool of workers at the cost of other workers priced out of work, increased prices, a decrease in labor hours, and some workers having to go outside the price floor (here, working outside Seattle) to make up the lost money.