That's just the problem, there isn't a "general consensus" on minimum wage among economists. There is a broad and varied body of research with a variety of cont

That's just the problem, there isn't a "general consensus" on minimum wage among economists. There is a broad and varied body of research with a variety of contradictory conclusions. A brief overview of the state of the literature is handily summed up here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_minwage#wiki_empirical_studies https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_minwage#wiki_emp... The tl;dr from that section is nicely concise: > The most comprehensive summary that can be made about the minimum wage literature is that while the evidence is sometimes contradictory, small minimum wage increases seem to either have no employment effects or at least quite small employment effects in the short run. Estimates of long-run impacts, or the impact of large minimum wage increases are presently unknown. Seattle is notable because it was (I believe) the largest MW increase in US history. The research has broadly agreed that with large changes, we don't have evidence predicting what'll happen, which is why this study is of such critical political importance to both sides - if it shows that the MW is a net gain, then the MW proponents get to say "see? no large changes, $15 MW nationwide now!". If it shows a net loss, the MW opponents get to say "see? You can't go past the inflection point without moving backwards, put the brakes on this push". Card/Kreuger was notable because it was the first robust result that contradicted the consensus at the time. The paper contributed substantially to our understanding of labor economics, and it would have been a major mistake to discount it because it conflicted with the widely-held beliefs at the time. To dismiss the UW study because it contradicts some contemporary research would be just as much a mistake.