Why everything is so confusing.

Did a search on Google for:
The effect of minimum wage

The first two articles were:
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_min_wage_bp/
"Historically, analyses of the minimum wage’s impact on young workers have never shown the predicted large job-loss effects."

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/negative-effects-minimum-wage-laws
"decades of economic research show that minimum wages usually end up harming workers and the broader economy."

Huh, that's two very different conclusions, both claiming to be obvious based on past evidence. I then looked at their About pages:

"The Economic Policy Institute’s mission is to inform and empower individuals to seek solutions that ensure broadly shared prosperity and opportunity."

"The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace."

Well, Cato's mission statement seems to include a clear bias against minimum wage, as minimum wage is a form of wage control and opposite the concept of limited government and free markets. I guess I understand why they offer such vastly different views now. However, both present themselves as neutral experts in their fields, which means anyone wanting to argue either point now has experts they can point to to back up their claims.

I feel like I'm in a world heavily burdened by incomplete information, where there is so much info to be learned, that it is easier to know only a little, than to know a lot. Thus resulting in most people only knowing a tiny piece of the truth, yet assuming they know all they need to.

Having not actually done the research, I can't say for sure which one is right and which is wrong (though based on the mission statements, I'm more inclined to trust the EPI over Cato). However, it's clear that there are "experts" out there either deliberately, or unintentionally sowing disinformation. That's why it is so hard to make sense of the world.

After reading the articles a bit, it seems both are suffering from only looking at a small piece of the picture. EPI is looking at the continental US and finding minimum wage increases to be beneficial or at least not harmful. Cato is looking at US territories such as Puerto Rico and Samoa, both of which showed large negative effects of minimum wage increases. This implies that the effects of a minimum wage depend on the local situation, and cannot be universally stated as good or bad. This also implies that while a high minimum wage may be good in some states or cities, implementing it on a national level may be a bad idea because the proper wage level varies from place to place. Location matters.

The modern world is suffering really heavily from selective presentation of information, combined with the standard desire for a simple explanation. Life isn't simple, and can't be summed up in a pithy slogan.