What you're engaging in is a classic logical fallacy.
This quote here:
Reduced employment, increased prices, distorted wages and prices along the way.
This is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."
A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B.
Your insistence that minimum wage caused these things is a perfect example of this fallacy. You assume it happened because it occurred afterwards.
You have to prove causation before you make these kinds of claims. The best part is, you really can't. This sort of claim is just shooting from the hip, hoping it fits into your narrative you've carefully crafted. It's like saying, "The automotive recession started in October 1989, which was the start of the requirement that some cars of each manufacturer be fitted with air bags... Perhaps the reason that car sales have gone down is that many consumers are not willing to pay for a car with air bags."
no subject
This quote here:
Reduced employment, increased prices, distorted wages and prices along the way.
This is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."
A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
Your insistence that minimum wage caused these things is a perfect example of this fallacy. You assume it happened because it occurred afterwards.
You have to prove causation before you make these kinds of claims. The best part is, you really can't. This sort of claim is just shooting from the hip, hoping it fits into your narrative you've carefully crafted. It's like saying, "The automotive recession started in October 1989, which was the start of the requirement that some cars of each manufacturer be fitted with air bags... Perhaps the reason that car sales have gone down is that many consumers are not willing to pay for a car with air bags."