High levels of income inequality undermine public support for raising the minimum wage, potentially creating a self-perpetuating cycle in which inequality is tolerated and accepted as natural. This phenomenon, explored in research published by the American Psychological Association, suggests that as people observe the stark differences in income, they may believe such disparities are justified or inevitable. The study introduces the concept of the “is-to-ought” fallacy—where individuals draw moral conclusions from existing states of affairs—leading many to conclude that current income gaps reflect how things should be. This cognitive error could ultimately discourage support for redistributive policies that might otherwise help reduce inequality.

The research, led by M. Asher Lawson, PhD, of INSEAD in France, and Daniela Goya-Tocchetto, PhD, of SUNY Buffalo, examined real-world and experimental data. Analysing over 130,000 protests across the United States between 2017 and 2023, the researchers found that regions with higher economic inequality tended to see fewer and less well-attended protests concerning financial issues, such as demands for higher wages. This decline in civic mobilisation suggests that the very existence of inequality may sap the momentum needed to challenge it. In tandem with the protest data, eight controlled experiments were conducted in which participants were shown hypothetical economic distributions. Strikingly, when inequality was depicted as higher, participants were less inclined to support increases in the minimum wage and more likely to believe that low-income earners deserved less access to goods and services.

These findings underscore a psychological mechanism whereby inequality entrenches itself through material conditions and shifts in collective belief. “When the rich earn dramatically more than the poor, people often infer that the rich should earn more,” explained Lawson. This normalisation of inequality may erode the perceived legitimacy of policies that narrow economic gaps. The researchers argue that the visibility of extreme wealth disparities leads to a warped sense of fairness, where individuals assume that existing outcomes are the product of merit or necessity rather than structural imbalances. As a result, support wanes for policies like higher minimum wages specifically intended to alleviate economic hardship for low earners.

Despite sporadic increases at the state and municipal levels, the federal minimum wage in the United States has remained stagnant at $7.25 per hour since 2009. Inflation and cost of living have risen sharply during that time, rendering the federal minimum wage insufficient to meet basic needs. A single adult working full-time at this rate earns just $15,080 per year, an income that falls below the federal poverty threshold and often disqualifies individuals from obtaining necessary government assistance. Yet, paradoxically, even as the inadequacy of the wage becomes more glaring, public support for raising it does not appear to rise in proportion—particularly in areas with more severe income stratification.

Political ideology also played an intriguing role in the study’s findings. Conservatives consistently opposed raising the minimum wage, regardless of the income distribution in the hypothetical scenarios. In contrast, liberal participants displayed greater variability: they were more supportive of higher minimum wages in egalitarian contexts. Still, they tended to reduce their support when inequality was higher. This suggests that liberals, while generally more sympathetic to economic justice, are also more susceptible to the is-to-ought fallacy. According to Goya-Tocchetto, this tendency to adjust views based on presented scenarios may come from a more reflective approach. Still, it inadvertently increases vulnerability to cognitive distortions reinforcing the status quo.

In response to these insights, the researchers emphasise that public campaigns aimed at raising the minimum wage may benefit from a shift in strategy. Rather than highlighting how high inequality has become, which risks normalising it further, advocates might instead focus on the potential for change—emphasising what a more equitable income distribution could look like. This idea was tested in a final experiment involving over 1,900 participants. One group was shown income distribution data and asked to consider it as-is, while another group was allowed to modify the distributions. The latter group demonstrated significantly less influence from existing inequality when making wage recommendations, suggesting that prompting individuals to imagine alternative economic realities can disrupt the default is-to-ought thinking. This finding offers a glimmer of hope: by engaging the public in envisioning how things could be rather than how they are, support for policies addressing inequality might be more effectively cultivated.

More information: Asher Lawson et al, Income inequality depresses support for higher minimum wages, Journal of Experimental Psychology. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001772

Journal information: Journal of Experimental Psychology Provided by American Psychological Association