the short run. Firms cannot reduce their employment immediately and students will not dropped their school instantly. But in the long run, firms will start to purchase more worker-efficient machinary or reduce the size of their business. More teenagers choose to work directly after finishing their highschool rather than enrolling in college. All of these factors will drive up unemployment among less-skilled workers. A lot of critics said that minimum wage is “hurting those it is intended to help” (Mankiw 451). Workers who remain employed are gain some benefit from a higher wage, but those who loose their jobs are worse off. Even if minimum wage law really benefit the low-waged workers, it is a poorly targeted policy. Most of the minimum wage workers are second or third earners in their families. They are dominated by teenagers from middle class families who work on part time job. In fact, only about “one-fifth of minimum wage workers live in poor families” (Blank 115). Furthermore, not all of them are the main workers in their families. As one of the low wage workers, I will benefit from a higher minimum wafe. But higher wage means that I will easily loose my job. Moreover, a high payment for bad jobs will reduce my desire to pursue my college carreer. Because of the above reasons, minimum wage is not a very attractive policy. It is poorly targeted, encourage teenagers to drop their school, and creates unemployment. In an economist point of view, like many other free market interference, the policy is more destructive than productive. As the vice chairman of the house of representative Jim Saxton said, “the minimum wage cannot repeal the law of supply and demand any more effectively than they can repeal the law of gravity”....
