In the longer term you're absolutely right. And in the longer term I don't think automation is an overall bad thing. I suspect that those of us in the industrialized world will be in for a rude awakening when we realize that it's the developing countries that will reap most of the benefits, but that's a digression.

What I meant with my comment was that the only people that benefit specifically from lowering wages* to stave off automation are the employers. It's a short-term event - buying people a few years or so - and effectively won't be reflected in the long-term price level changes. And the effect on the wage level spreads to areas that are not otherwise immediately affected by automation. The employers are effectively reaping the benefit of automation a bit early; a margin profit that we're unlikely to see.

* Wages can be lowered in other ways than reducing the pay. Adding to the workload, no compensation for inflation, more responsibility, night or shift work, or split shifts; they are all effectively the same as lowering the wage.

"The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive there will be to automate those minimum-wage jobs.

The wage really doesn't matter. What matters is if automation is able to do the job at all - where "able" of course includes social acceptance and other non-technical factors as well. But once you are able to replace it, the cost of that replacement will drop, and will drop below the human wage sooner or later.

Trying to race automation to the cost bottom is an exercise in futility; it's a race humans will not win. The only ones that benefit from it are the employers that get cheaper labour faster as a result.

"genuine anecdotal evidence"

I'm not quite sure you understand the meaning of "genuine" here. Or "evidence"...

Next you are going to tell me that the Republicans want to push grandma off the cliff, take food from starving children, and ruin the environment.

Yes... What's your point?