Information or propaganda? More Cowen on minimum wages

Here is something I would like to know about the minimum wage — specifically, something about how job loss (or gain, yes gain) are calculated.  If we use two different countries for a model (representing let us say bottom 40% wages and upper 59% wages), then, I think economists would automatically calculate whether higher labor prices might actually add lower 40% (nation) jobs under the expectation that higher wages create their own demand — and lower 40% earners purchase proportionately more lower 40% pay produced goods.
Think OPEC.  OPEC charges twice as much for the same amount of oil (of course demand for oil is very, extremely sticky).  OPEC then spends a lot more money on whatever it wants and the rest of the world buys less goodies for itself.  Easily understood.
Now, suppose demand for oil declined 10% when the (formerly cheap) price doubles.  OPEC still does very well for itself.  The rest of the world bought fewer goodies for itself — maybe nobody lost a job anywhere — maybe higher oil prices just redirected demand.  Actually Saudi princes probably redirected demand to some different places than the rest of the world would have spent money.  Same overall demand in both cases.
In OPEC’s case more demand would be shifted towards high end goods.  I lower 40% pay labor’s case, demand would probably shift towards lower end goods.
Now, what I would like to know is whether or not economists take into account what I call (don’t look for it on Google) “redirection” when they estimate job loss/gain associated with a federal minimum wage raise.  Is there a specific number or equation that tries to take account of that?
Real world wage raise effect on prices.  Labor at firms with 25% labor costs (e.g., fast food) can add 50% to wages with only 12.5% price raise — which might cost 10% of sales — fine with labor even without any input from “redirection.”  Ditto for labor at more typical 10-15% labor costs firms (e.g., Target, Walgreens) — and ditto for labor at extreme low labor cost firms (e.g., Walmart).  Can you imagine what the Teamsters Union could do with 7% labor costs.
If lower 40% labor firms just barely make up for initial sales losses via “redirection”, then, labor will have doubled its wages and not cost a single job.  I think “redirection” will not just return jobs but add a bigger mix of lower price product jobs while draining away some high price product jobs (e.g., higher end restaurants will lose some business to a bit higher prices and more because its regular customers have less money to spend overall as product prices have increased across the board — across lower 40% pay product boards).
Again: when estimating job loss or gain from a minimum wage raise do economists use a specific number or equation to take into account “redirection”?  I have never heard of such an estimate predicting job gain, so I suppose they must not.

@Dennis,
You need double ¶¶ between paragraphs, I think.
one
 
two