People – and by people I mean pundits and economists – can’t seem to quit talking about the CBO minimum wage report. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, has one of the tougher takes on the analysis. In Market Watch, she suggests that CBO seriously underestimates the job losses that would be caused by raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10. She directly takes on the argument that raising wages for the lowest-paid workers will boost demand and stimulate the economy.

The report continues, “Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.”

But spending by upper-income consumers helps to employ low-wage workers. The Labor Department’s consumer expenditure data for 2012 show that the highest fifth of income earners was responsible for 52% of spending on personal household services, and 56% of spending on fees and admission to entertainment. These are all local businesses that employ low-wage workers. Reducing the incomes of the top fifth will result in less spending on these categories, and less domestic employment.

In contrast, the lowest fifth of income earners spend a higher than average percent of their income on apparel, footwear, and nondurables, which are more likely to be imported. A substantial percentage of goods sold at superstores — where low-income individuals tend to shop — are made overseas.

She contends that a higher minimum wage puts is precisely the wrong prescription.

CBO’s conclusion that approximately 96% of workers will keep their jobs, even with substantial increases in their wages, suggests that these workers have been underpaid. The only way this could be the case is if labor markets in the United States were profoundly out of balance. CBO presents no evidence that this is the case. Indeed, CBO does not address the millions of unemployed Americans who seek work, especially teens and low-skill workers. This is evidence that entry-level wages are too high, not too low.

CBO does not address the biggest losers of increasing the minimum wage: low-skill teenage workers who will be denied the right to work in the United States. They may be willing and able to provide a prospective employer with services that are worth $5 an hour, or $7 an hour. If the hourly minimum wage rises to $10.10, they will miss the first rung on the career ladder to success. Sitting idly unemployed, they may take solace in knowing that CBO calculated that they would be better off.

Former U.S. Chamber of Commerce economist Richard Rahn also weighs in.

Many of those advocating a higher minimum wage are the same folks who correctly claim that higher taxes on tobacco will reduce smoking over time and argue that higher taxes on carbon will tend to reduce such emissions over time. If higher prices for smokers and carbon emitters change behavior and result in less tobacco and coal being produced, why would not higher labor costs result in fewer workers being hired?

Good question.