Correlation may not equal causation, but it does definitely count as empirical support. The slides I posted may not prove that minimum wage causes unemployment

Correlation may not equal causation, but it does definitely count as empirical support. The slides I posted may not prove that minimum wage causes unemployment among the lower skilled, but they certainly support the idea. At a minimum, they move it away from "idealized assumption" toward "something that survived contact with the data". And really, does economics ever get much better than that? I think it rarely gets even that good. When you have a correlation, the logical possibilities are that A causes B, B causes A, C causes both, or the correlation isn't real -- just random noise. I think the last option is pretty unlikely, and I'm having a very hard time imagining how unemployment among lower skilled workers would cause minimum wage increases, or what in the world would cause both. Particularly persuasive to me is that the strength of the relationship changes with education level -- exactly what I'd expect. No, I suppose I don't know for sure. It's always possible something else causes both, and sure, the dots are all over the map even if there is a relationship; it is a complex system. But to be honest, I really do find that data pretty persuasive. I didn't see anything in the Wikipedia entry that changed my mind much, either. Mostly it was unrelated to what I posted: studies specifically on teenagers (which showed more or less what I'd expect, that minimum wage increases decreased employment), and a comment that in a complex system, lots of factors affect unemployment. (Sure, of course). I don't know, it says "Economists now disagree", but it doesn't say much about what changed their minds. I don't feel bound to change mine just because they did, though it's certainly something to take seriously.