Shock Doctrine: Third World Logic

Guess which one of these countries outsourced 17 factories per day between 2000 and 2012 and now claims it can't afford a living minimum wage...

First, we are constantly "told" that a higher minimum wage leads to higher unemployment. Then wouldn't that mean that lower wages creates more jobs?

Yes, but the new jobs are all in China. 
This graph shows wages declining and total employment declining at the same time. I smell Third World bullshit...

Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have higher minimum wages than the U.S., so they must by the same logic all have higher unemployment:

Throughout my entire life (since 1968), the U.S. had lower unemployment than Canada, but then along came Shock  Doctrine 2008. Canada now has a higher minimum wage and lower unemployment:

Australia has the highest minimum wage in the world, so I guess no one works in that country.

It turns out that Australia had higher unemployment than the U.S. until, let's see: 2008. Aussies now have more jobs and make a shit ton more money:

SHOCK DOCTRINE VISUALIZED:

New Zealand overtook the U.S. on employment almost fifteen years ago:

U.S. Wages versus Profits % of GDP. Guess which is which:

In summary, a higher minimum wage will work fine in every country except the U.S. where in fact as wages go down so do the number of jobs. Apparently in the U.S. jobs will just keeping going down whether wages go higher or lower: 

NO JOBS. NO INCOMES. JUST GREEDY DUMBFUCKS.