Your link looks at correlations. Correlation is not causation.
I guess you missed that the regressive analysis also utilized as well as the government records examination.
Do words in English mean the same to you as they do to me?
Apparently not.
The question is whether "living wages" decrease employment. The article says: "We confirm our earlier findings that business assistance living wage laws boost wages of the lowest-wage workers, at the cost of some disemployment"
Oh I see, its because you only look at the text to your liking. If we continue where you left off there:
"
but on net reduce urban poverty. Second, we expand the analysis of distributional effects beyond looking just at the poverty threshold. We do not find that living wages increase the depth of poverty among families that remain poor, and we find that families somewhat below and somewhat above the poverty line are also helped by living wages. Finally, we suggest that the poverty reductions generated by living wages may stem from income gains for individuals with higher wages or skills who are nonetheless in poor families, rather than for the lowest-wage or lowest-skill individuals. "
And this you also ignored:
"
there is no valid, research-based rationale for believing that state minimum wages cause measurable job losses. Making the extreme case that the job losses are severe enough to show up in a noticeably elevated state unemployment rate is a wild extension of a largely unfounded theory. "
Employment and the Minimum Wage—Evidence from Recent State Labor Market Trends
I would rather have two people earning $7/hr than one person earning $14/hr and one person unemployed. You?
I would rather have two people making a living wage than two that require public assistance to live. More people to pay taxes that way as well, making the tax burden less for the rest of us.