Do you have a link for that data? I get a headache whenever I try to navigate around the BLS website.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=get_data&reformat=true&from_results_page=true&from_year=1948&to_year=2004&Go.x=18&Go.y=13&include_graphs=true&initial_request=false&data_tool=other&series_id=LNU04000000&years_option=specific_years&delimiter=

This is my link for the overall seasonally unadjusted unemployment data, not the minimum wage data. If you compare month to month for 1991 and 1992 it shows each and every month being a higher unemployment than the year before, for both 1992 and 1991. If your data actually show increasing employment at or near the minimum wage it is going in the exact opposite direction as the general unemployment rate. Perhaps the original thesis of minimum wages causes unemployment is better supported by the data than your suggestion that it helps employment.

Of course the real thing going on during 1991 is a recession, or at least the aftermath of one.

1998 the economy was expanding, and so was employment. A better comparison might be between the recession years begining the 1990's and beginning the 2000's so that you aren't comparing apples and oranges.

Again, assuming your data is accurate, I have an alternative explanation. People who were paid above the old minimum wage are now employed at the minimum wage, thus increasing minimum wage employment. A better comparison would therefore be comparing people who made at or above the new minimum wage in the years you want to study, rather than at or below the old minimum pre-raise and at or below the minimum post-raise. I expect you'll see a radically different picture than the one your weird math is trying to paint.

That is a very interesting point!!

I had not thought about that, but it makes sense and I think there is evidence to support it. For example, in Sweden there is so much unionization that there is very little individual negotiation in any industry. Obviously workers want to negotiate both long contracts and high wages. Unions promise both – but they only get long contracts– wage sin Sweden are incredibly low. Part of the reason is that there is no competition over labor – there aren't a thousand individual negotiations and searching around the job market for a better deal. The companies just say "I pay the industry union rate."

Nope. We have a much lower rate of "long term unemployed" than other rich countries. Perhaps it is higher than poor countries, I don't know. But for "long term unemployed" = 1 yr or longer, we have about 8% – that is, 8% of the unemployed in the country have been unemployed for 1 yr or more. It is 20-30% in much of Europe and 40-50% in certain European countries. It does not usually make sense to compare rich and poor countries as the jobs available and the pay and so many factors are so very different.

>I unfortunately am not aware of a source that gives me minimum wage levels for various countries.

I know of some sources.
One good one is here: http://www.lisproject.org/publications/welfaredata/welfareaccess.htm

It has min wage, unionization and a bunch of other data for OECD countries plus some others.

Ahem.

Now THAT is some of the strangest math I've ever seen. No wonder we see some weird theories in here…