It was 3.35 in 1981, so during a decade of high inflation, the minimum wage only went up a dollar, hardly during that period keeping up with the rate of inflation.
Right. Didn't during that period, and it more than did recently. It also more than kept up with inflation over the last 60-70 years. As inflation has increased more reliably
recently, so to have we see, more regular increases in the minimum wage.
It's all academic, though, because it's not a good idea regardless of how well it keeps up with inflation.
Let us remember until the bank crisis unemployment was historically low with some retailers unable to attract workers at the minimum wage so the notion the minimum wage has anything to do with the unemployment rate is absurd.
This is simply a non-sequitur. The fact that there was a specific period in time where the job market was so healthy that people had to offer more than the minimum wage to attract workers does not in any way suggest that there is no correlation, or even that it doesn't negatively impact unemployment. It only means that, within that time frame, whatever impact it may have had was easily mitigated by other factors. What you're saying is the equivalent of "it can't be hot out because my air conditioned room is way too cold." In reality, it'd just be even colder if it weren't so hot out.
It should be obvious that the minimum wage impacts unemployment to some degree. If the minimum wage were $100, fewer people would be hired. Ditto for $50 an hour, or $20. As long as there are
any tasks that are worth less than the minimum wage to
any employer, the minimum wage will cause more unemployment than there otherwise would be. And this is without even getting into the other costs associated with hiring and firing, such as the time, effort, training, and even unemployment insurance, which means the real baseline on the employer side is even higher than that.