The minimum-wage debate is won by curation, not by evidence.
Each camp's advocacy layer amplifies only the half of converging studies that fits its prior — stripping aggregate caveats from harm headlines and sourcing closure counts to trade-association projections — so the public narrative never moves even as the underlying literature converges on modest aggregate effects with concentrated harm.
The same conclusion keeps arriving from across the workspace's research — 1 topics independently instantiate this theme. Filter the evidence by where it came from:
Seattle's circulating restaurant-closure narrative traces to industry and advocacy sources rather than peer-reviewed work, with both camps expected to quote the same BLS series differently.
A restaurant-industry front group headlines a real NBER study for only its small-chain harm half, omitting the aggregate finding that contradicts its own 'staggering job losses' narrative.