Ignore what he says, but pay attention to what he does. If the article is truthful, some employers are lowering their operating costs by either cutting hours or terminating employees; others are raising prices of their products. The former is bad for employment, the latter for customers. As prices elevate, they approach the marginal value of eating out. Eating out is very elastic, so if the prices rise too high, the companies could fail, causing more unemployment.
It's a fine line. My personal opinion is that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, but more for entry level, part time jobs for teenagers etc. If we raise the minimum wage to a level that provides a living wage (assuming 40 hour work week), then it becomes complicated since a lot of jobs are part time. To earn a living wage, someone would have to have multiple jobs, which generally sucks if you work in the food industry. It's a complicated problem, with lots of legacy baggage and viewpoints. Providing a living wage sounds great, but I think there's lots of issues when you're dealing with transient employees who don't want to work full time, don't have many skills, etc.
The only stat they cite is that some employers are raising prices. There are no other stats cited - only anecdotes.
In the ideal pro-minimum-wage world, prices go up slightly but the impact on those who get the minimum wage bump is bigger than the impact on those people from price changes OR the impact on other people for those price changes.
That's the tradeoff pro-min-wage people would expect and want so if that's happening, no news there.
The tradeoff they would not want would be massive hours cuts, businesses going out of business (although some would want that - not me!), or this turning into an excuse for the businesses to cut costs and/or automate. We would need data of some kind to understand if that's happening.
I wasn't really focusing on causation so much. People say a lot of things about who/what they are and what they value. But what they do is really a better determinant of that than what they say.
It's a fine line. My personal opinion is that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, but more for entry level, part time jobs for teenagers etc. If we raise the minimum wage to a level that provides a living wage (assuming 40 hour work week), then it becomes complicated since a lot of jobs are part time. To earn a living wage, someone would have to have multiple jobs, which generally sucks if you work in the food industry. It's a complicated problem, with lots of legacy baggage and viewpoints. Providing a living wage sounds great, but I think there's lots of issues when you're dealing with transient employees who don't want to work full time, don't have many skills, etc.