Statistics and correlation are not meaningless. The criticism of the WSJ may be (probably was) unwarranted, but the rest is not meaningless.
The actual article mentions almost everything he does, then focuses on wage increases as worsening the effect. This blogger decides to focus on 55+ employment, which he already wrote about. How is one pre-conceived narrative and the other not?
Meanwhile, if you look at the graph, you see a straight line downward which flattens in 'ok' economies, and plunges during recession. Was flat through 2007, when the minimum wage increase was enacted. No mention of the fact that this phenomenon of jobless recoveries has applied to most jobs at most payscales over the time period they're highlighting. No mention of the fact that the minimum wage was higher in real terms for most of the 20th century, and teen employment was higher then (not that the one is likely to cause the other).
I'll admit that they did include the graph. Reading the article does not make the author sound more honest or truth-seeking, though. Check out some of the applause lines.
Granted. However, in a post about how correlation between unemployment and minimum wage is overstated, I feel his defense should be more rigorous than: A) Irrelevantly point out Bush was in office, and B) Simply post another correlating statistics.