Although the standard model predicts that employers will replace workers with machines if wages increase, additional labor-saving technologies are not available to every company at a reasonable cost. Small employers in particular have limited flexibility; at their scale, they may not be able to maintain their operations with fewer workers. Therefore, some companies can't lay off employees if the minimum wage is increased.

In a 2017 article in the Atlantic titled "The Curse of Econ 101," author James Kwak defends increasing the minimum wage as a means to address income inequality. Here is a sample of Mr. Kwak's reasoning skills:

What will small businesses with "limited flexibility" do when wage hikes eliminate their profit margins? Only someone with no clue on how to run a business would have written something so asinine.

Since income inequality is so important to progressives, maybe they should find out which states have done a better job of addressing this "grave injustice."

Zippia (a website for employers and job hunters) compiled data to calculate Gini scores for all states from 2012 to 2016. The Gini Coefficient has been used since 1912 to quantify income inequality. Values range from 0 (perfect equality) to 100 (perfect inequality). Based on data from the publication 24/7 Wall St. and Forbes, there is no evidence that government policies for spreading the wealth or restricting business freedom have narrowed the wealth gap (Tables 1 and 2):

Table 1: Income redistribution and income inequality.

States doing the most in 2011 Gini coefficient (2012-2016) States doing the least in 2011 Gini coefficient (2012-2016) Alaska 42.60 Alabama 47.69 California 48.80 Arizona 46.82 Connecticut 49.47 Arkansas 47.08 Hawaii 43.69 Florida 48.52 Massachusetts 48.26 Idaho 44.57 Minnesota 44.90 Indiana 44.94 New Jersey 47.82 Oklahoma 46.52 New York 51.02 S. Carolina 46.90 Pennsylvania 46.80 Tennessee 47.86 Rhode Island 47.38 Texas 48.03 average 47.07 average 46.89

Table 2: Business regulatory environment and income inequality.

Worst 10 for Regulations (2017) Gini coefficient (2012-2016) Best 10 for Regulations (2017) Gini coefficient (2012-2016) California 48.80 Florida 48.52 Connecticut 49.47 Georgia 48.16 Delaware 44.88 Indiana 44.94 Hawaii 43.69 Iowa 44.22 Maine 45.15 Nebraska 44.20 Maryland 45.13 North Carolina 47.48 New Jersey 47.82 South Carolina 46.90 Rhode Island 43.38 Tennessee 47.86 Vermont 44.35 Utah 42.61 West Virginia 46.21 Virginia 46.73 average 46.89 average 46.16

If government programs have not diminished inequality, maybe we should focus our efforts on some of the root causes. Data on single parenting trends from the Kids Count data center provides a clue (Table 3). This difference becomes more prominent when the sources are switched (Table 4):

Table 3: Family breakdown and income inequality.

Highest 10 for Single Mothers (2015) Gini coefficient (2012-2016) Lowest 10 for Single Mothers (2015) Gini coefficient (2012-2016) Alabama 47.69 Colorado 45.90 Delaware 44.88 Idaho 44.57 Florida 48.52 Minnesota 44.90 Georgia 48.16 Montana 45.87 Louisiana 49.03 Nebraska 44.20 Mississippi 47.99 North Dakota 45.86 Nevada 45.22 Utah 42.61 New Mexico 47.54 Vermont 44.35 Rhode Island 47.38 Washington 45.60 South Carolina 46.90 Wyoming 42.79 average 47.33* average 44.67*

★Based on a one-tailed T-test, the means are significantly different at p = 0.0001.

Table 4: Income inequality and family breakdown.

10 highest Gini scores (2012-2016) % Single Mothers 10 lowest Gini scores (2012-2016) % Single Mothers California 34 Alaska 34 Connecticut 32 Hawaii 31 Florida 40 Iowa 30 Georgia 39 Nebraska 29 Illinois 34 New Hampshire 30 Massachusetts 33 South Dakota 32 Mississippi 48 Utah 19 Lousiana 45 Vermont 27 New York 36 Wisconsin 32 Texas 36 Wyoming 29 average 37.7* average 29.3*

★Based on a one-tailed T-test, the means are significantly different at p = 0.0005

Based on these data, moral decline, not laissez-faire capitalism, is a major cause of income inequality in America. Conservatives have been saying this for years, but when University of Pennsylvania professor Amy Wax defended "bourgeois values" in 2017, the National Lawyers Guild denounced her column as "a textbook example of how white supremacy and cultural elitism are used to denigrate the poor and sustain the gross wealth inequality that defines American capitalism." This statement is a textbook example of virtue-signaling at the expense of cold, hard facts.

To discredit opponents of "living wages," James Kwak conjures up straw men that "abstract away the (harsh) reality of low wage work." Nevertheless, with no hint of self-awareness, Kwak cavalierly "balances" the hardship of "some people" losing their jobs against the "benefit of greater earnings for other low-income workers."

The law of supply and demand is like the law of natural selection. It does not care how much you are suffering or how much you "deserve." This is why almost everyone agrees that some kind of safety net is necessary. But the alleviation of poverty does not justify increasing taxes on the wealthy in order to "narrow" the wealth gap.

John Adams warned against the moral hazard of wealth redistribution:

If "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal" were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

When Pope Francis wrote in his 2013 apostolic exhortation that "inequality is the root of social ills" and that "inequality spawns violence," he inverted the commandments against coveting and stealing by shifting the moral burden to the property-owner. To narrow the wealth gap, the pope recommended "a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders." If government is the solution to inequality, why are less affluent Americans fleeing in droves from nearly all the states on the left columns of Tables 1 and 2?

Coveting and stealing are natural impulses. Respect for property is a learned value that requires moral restraint. If voters from these states revisit the Ten Commandments and reject false teachings about the "evils" of inequality, the hardships that compelled so many residents to leave will be minimized. Unfortunately, natural impulses are hard to resist, especially when religious authorities join forces with the media to enable them.

Antonio Chaves teaches biology at a local community college. His interest in economic and social issues stems from his experience teaching environmental science.