Mark Hyman’s recent commentary on the alleged negative side effects of Seattle’s experiment with raising the minimum wage is a fine example of a fairly typical argumentative technique: when wishing to attack a general principle, choose a single specific instance to stand in for the whole—preferably one that appears particularly vulnerable.
This allows one to narrow a complex topic down to one concrete, simple (and sometimes simplistic) instance. And if this instance is atypical of the norm (and therefore much more susceptible to attack) but can be made to seem typical, so much the better.
It’s true that Hyman does not overtly use the Seattle instance to call into question the concept of the minimum wage as a whole, but it is no stretch to assume this is what he has in mind, given that the minimum wage is anathema in most uber-conservative circles.
