A young bricklayer in an acquaintance's family is currently trapped in the new worker's "Catch 22". He can't get a job because he has no experience. He can't get experience because he can't get a job. So he's unemployed, despite a construction boom.
His lack of experience means he's not worth the minimum wage. Six months' experience would make him worth far more. The minimum wage is well-intentioned, but should be judged - like all laws - by its outcomes, not by the intentions of the lawmakers.
The law of unintended consequences means that a young man who by now should be commanding a good wage as a brickie of two years experience is on the dole. How "caring" is that?