Funny when your claim didn't pan out you resort to getting rather desperate to find something, anything, that might still work:If you can bother to read into the report a bit more you will see that there is a decreased chance of being employed. Saying "When things are largely unchanged, they aren't harder." fails to take that into account. There are winners (those who remain employed and get a small bump in wages) and losers (those who got fired or who weren't hired). While those numbers come close to balancing out in the aggregate there are still losers and life for the losers is harder meaning the title is not incorrect
"We estimate that the impact of the Ordinance was a 1.1 percentage point decrease in likelihood of low-wage Seattle workers remaining employed."
I'll leave it as an exercise to you find their margin of error.
Agreed but you may not be on the side in that argument that you think you are on
So when you highlighted this claim of "Yet, our best estimates find that the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance appears to have lowered employment rates of low-wage workers.", were you not aware of the subsequent sentence which counteracts it with higher earnings or did you choose to lie? In other words, were you ignorant as suggested or a liar?