I'm sorry, I don't understand this editorial or the economic study. Can someone meinertsplain it to me?

Hiring decisions are not made on the basis of supply and demand alone. Rare is the instance where new employees are added based on how inexpensive they are or how much revenue the potential employer has. Rather, it's the demand for the employer's products which will determine how many workers are added or laid off.
If wages were cut in half, but demand for goods and services remains constant or drops, no additional hiring will take place. The producer will not add equipment or employees to expand capacity when he cannot sell all of the production he now realizes.
Demand is defined as the amount consumers (including business and government) are willing and able to pay for. By putting money in the hands of people who can be relied upon to promptly spend it, an increase in the minimum wage will increase demand. This is why we have seen an increase in hiring after voters raised the minimum wage by initiative, not the layoffs the opponents predicted.

@1) "meinertsplain." Hahahahaha.

Why is she pointing to the most expensive city in the nation as an example to follow?

@4

Why San Francisco? Maybe because of wealth creation? Innovation? Job creation?

The irony is that those who condescendingly lecture us children that we know nothing about creating wealth or creating jobs then have to spin like tops to say we don't want to end up like San Francisco, an engine of wealth and new technology and new ideas driving the global economy. Not that! Then, before you've had time to think, they spin around again and warn that we don't want to be like Detroit, where the minimum wage is $2 less than the current Washington rate. Huh?

In the end, the story is just that the Seattle status quo works for guys like Dave Meinert. Business as usual works for him, made him who he is. Obviously the winners don't want to change the way the game is played.