It was entirely warranted, because they're a newspaper and they were reporting in direct contradiction of the actual facts on this subject, in order to fit a pre-conceived narrative.
Did you actually read the WSJ article, or just the rebuttal to it?
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?
They provide zero evidence for their contention that wage increases "worsen the effect", and their phrasing implies that everything would be peachy keen if not for a minimum wage increase which caused this unemployment.
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.
It was an editorial, clearly marked in the Opinion section. It's little better than a blog. You'd hope they'd have some editorial oversight, but after the WSJ was purchased by Rupert Murdoch I don't really have any such illusions. Editorial integrity is not something that Murdoch aspires to or holds in high regard.
