> In particular, to avoid confusing establishments that were subject to the minimum with those that were not, the authors did not include large employers with

> In particular, to avoid confusing establishments that were subject to the minimum with those that were not, the authors did not include large employers with locations both inside and outside of Seattle in their calculations. Wait, so are places like corporate McDonalds, Starbucks, Subway, etc excluded from the study? ...What about grocery stores? ...Clothing stores, mall shops, etc? It seems like failing to include those would be a major bias in the effects of the study. Edit: "Indeed, while employment overall did not change, that was because employers replaced low-paying jobs with high-paying jobs. The number of workers making over $19 an hour increased abruptly, while the number making less than that amount declined, Vigdor and his colleagues found. Vigdor said that restaurateurs in Seattle -- along with other employers -- responded to the minimum wage by hiring more skilled and experienced workers, who might be able to produce more revenue for their firms in the same amount of time." Oh, so their "loss" to low-paying jobs can be explained by a rise in jobs paying above their cutoff for "low-paying"? I have a lot of questions about this study; particularly since it doesn't agree with the other study mentioned in the article (with this study using "new" methods and the other using more "traditional" methods).