What the heck does opposing 'Evidence-based' policy mean that you support?

Non-evidence based policy? Really?

Super-evidence-based policy? (That's some damn interesting marketing propaganda.)

I literally cannot wrap my head around what the first article wants us to base our policy on except "listen to what we say, and ignore any contrary evidence."

Many labor market regulations transfer wealth or job security to the already-employed at the expense of the unemployed, and these have been increasing over time.

One example: raising the minimum wage makes lower-productivity workers permanently unemployable, because their work is not worth the price, so no one can afford to hire them any more.

When the government raises minimum wage, it effectively funds the development of automation, as businesses seek replacements for low-end labor. (Like Amazon buying that robotics company to build warehouse management robots.)

Heck, you could almost say that AI doesn't cause unemployment; the need for unemployment causes AI. When labor cost increases without a productivity gain, there has to be a productivity gain to make up for it, and the pain of the increase motivates businesses to actually look for alternatives to their current ways of doing something.

So every time the minimum wage goes up, companies will replace more and more of their former minimum wage workers with automation. Somehow, the politicians never catch on to this, or they know and don't care. It makes me want to scream every time I get a promotional email from some organization talking about how evil low wages are and how the minimum wage needs to be raised. Don't they know they are going to make jobs go away, basically forever?

The legend in canon says exactly that; the Peverell brother who got the Cloak was most successful, and lived a long time because the Cloak allowed him to evade death (until one day he took it off and got screwed).

man's attraction is static because women's value is static (looks based)

[...]

However, the one you really want isn't defined as the hottest girl, but the awesome girl that you want to be with more than anything.

One the one hand the argument is that a guy isn't attracted to the girl which whom he wants to be with more than anything because of looks (because she's the hottest) and one the other hand the argument is that male attraction is all about looks?

it's everybody's observations of the world.

Correction: it is Harry's observations of the general public of the wizarding world, which is far from the same thing.

There are many possible worlds in which a number of powerful wizards know for a fact that souls exist, and live their lives accordingly, but which look exactly the same to Harry.

In fact, it's rather probable that a world in which a minority of wizards are aware that souls really exist would look just like this one. Imagine what it's like to be a member of such a minority trying to spread the truth.

"By the way, souls really exist."

"I know - everyone believes in souls."

"No, I mean it - souls actually, literally, exist. So you shouldn't be too sad when people die, because they're just going somewhere else. And you shouldn't be too sad about your baby being stillborn, because it'll have another chance at happiness in the afterlife. And depending on their circumstances, severely disabled people might be better off comitting suicide so they can move on to a healthy existence faster. And- hey, where are you going?"

I'm not saying any of those are necessarily reasonable conclusions to draw from the existence of souls, but it makes the point. Trying to live like this will automatically put you at odds with the rest of society, who will at best treat you like a crazy minority religious sect. So most soul-aware wizards will probably keep it to themselves, resulting in a world where Harry will be unaware of them.

Even if souls exist and everyone knows this, evolution would probably still select for humans who feel grief after their loved ones die.

women's attraction is static (looks based).

I'm a straight, polyamorous, and financially successful man. And I say unto ye: Huh?!

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

English proverb

given the premise that souls do not exist

Do you mean that this is the premise of your analysis, or a premise of the HPMOR universe? Because if I understand correctly, all we have to show for the non-existence of souls is Harry's (entirely rational) belief, which may yet be challenged by future observations.

The blueprint makes that distinction but it's wrong. Male attraction is isomorphic to female attraction.

This is interesting to me, what do you mean by this statement? For example, the blueprint says that men's attraction is more or less binary and relatively fixed, while a woman's is a highly dynamic sliding scale. Would you disagree with this idea?