It's one of the standard arguments against a minimum wage. What follows is that by implementing it, you inadvertently hit the early-entry work force the hardest (in the US that would typically be teenagers getting their first jobs).
Apart from the general arguments against price floors and ceilings I think the other major argument against the minimum wage is that in the current systems (which a cynic could call lobby capitalism), minimum wage laws actually benefit "well connected incumbants" in low wage sectors who can use them to make market entry a lot harder for the competition.
German minimum wage in the postage sector could probably serve as a decent example if memory serves me well.
There's a chapter on minimum wage in "Economics in One Lesson" that picks up the argument of the parent post.
I am living in Germany, the removal of the German minimum wage in the postage sector resulted in effectively more companies providing post service, but for the end user, the price has not changed at all. But you see a lot of people bringing the mail in nearly destroyed cars, with the look of miserable people. I am all for competition, but in this case, the net benefit for the end users is zero and it created extremely low pay jobs.
The competitors of Deutsche Post are now using special structures not to pay the minimum wage to people (they are contractors) and this pushes Deutsche Post to do the same.
So, for this case, it was not good. In fact, the people in Germany pushed to get a minimum wage for all employees and the right wing government accepted. It shows you how bad the lack of minimum wage was for the people.
The same thing is happening in Belgium. Once the post (Bpost) was profitable our elected overlords began selling 49% their shares in it to something-i-dont-remember and... the danish post.
There's a chapter on minimum wage in "Economics in One Lesson" that picks up the argument of the parent post.