They keep saying that a "large" increase in minimum wage results in a 4.6% increase in case rate. But they don't [d̶e̶f̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶"̶l̶a̶r̶g̶e̶"̶ ̶(̶e̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶v̶s̶.̶ ̶"̶s̶m̶a̶l̶l̶"̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶d̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶l̶o̶w̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶c̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶r̶a̶t̶e̶)̶,̶ ̶n̶o̶r̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶] point out a margin of error or a noise floor early enough in the paper for a non-paying reader to see.<p>They also say that they "do not find evidence that capital-labor substitution could be behind the findings", but its again not within the scope of the free article to show <i>how</i> they were looking for such evidence, and what defined "capitol-labor substitution". Were they looking purely for "it costs $5k a year to provide everyone with safety glasses, but operating costs just increased by $5<i>0</i>k on what used to net $60k of profit, so I guess we're not doing safety glasses anymore" or if the same reasoning was used on $600k of profit. The former is clearly capitol-labor substitution, the latter is being cheap out of spite.<p>Maybe these questions are being answered in a satisfactory manner, but the fact that they use a blend of wiggle words and hard numbers, with no clarifying context even in the abstract, suggests to me that this does not actually support the strawman everybody seems to be getting from it, which is "see, paying the person at McDonalds enough to actually make rent this month might get them killed! You don't want to pay them so much they might <i>die</i>, right?"