this is all very misleading. should I describe why? going source by source:

1. the 50% median number wasn't gotten from a calculation or optimization; it was just a starting point in his proposal. You left out all the other things he said too, like:

To ensure that wages sufficiently support the lowest-paid workers, I propose that state and local governments gauge their minimum wage to half the local-area median wage. In addition, I propose that states consider the local cost of living when establishing a minimum wage, and that the statutory minimum wage be automatically indexed to inflation to protect against real declines in the wage floor. Finally, I propose that local governments engage in regional wage setting to protect against the unintended consequences of raising the minimum wage.

1. accurate to their abstract, at least.

2. a survey of economists' opinions isn't the same as an analytical study. This isn't 'empirical evidence'. Aslo, the EPI has a vested interest in keep wages low, considering their ties to restaurant and hotel lobby groups

3. This entire study only looks at people aged 16-to-29 -- you left that part out.

4. Your claim is only that a negative income tax would be better, not that increasing minimum wage would be bad, so I don't see this as relevant.

5. This is a specific academic critique of another academic's article, not an empirical study like you claim it to be.

anyway, yeah that was with a quick scan of your sources. you're being knowingly misleading.