The inequitable effects of the pandemic present a stark preview of our possible future

In recent months, social scientists and media pundits have made numerous, sometimes speculative predictions about the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the US economy, society, culture and the individual behaviour of Americans. The changing nature of work and workplaces, and Americans’ consumption paterns are particularly popular subjects for prognostication. Most observers agree that when life returns to pre-pandemic “normal,” more people will work from home, either fulltime or part-time, and shop online, and that this transformation may reduce the ecological damage caused by climate change. Although there is some disagreement about the effects of these changes on productivity, workplace relationships, employment paterns and family life, most commentators believe their overall impact will be beneficial.

History demonstrates, however, that all major societal transformations have decidedly mixed outcomes. They produce desirable consequences and unexpected, oten undesirable ones. In projections about the future of work, most forecasters have overlooked a major unintended, if not entirely unpredictable consequence: how changing work and consumption paterns will exacerbate longstanding inequalities, particularly along racial lines, maintain the hyper-segregation of major American cities like Baltimore and San Francisco, and lock in perpetuity the rigid political partisanship these divisions produce. They will also reduce the day-to-day interactions that occur across racial and class lines when people commute, work and shop together. My research on the relationship between periods of social progress and the extent of intergroup interaction, especially in cities, reveals a correlation between physical proximity and lasting policy reform.

The inequitable effects of the COVID-19 pandemic present a stark preview of our possible future. Essential workers, largely members of racial minority communities, either lost their jobs or did not have the option of working from home. Those who remained employed risked their health and lives to keep our society and economy functioning and suffered far higher rates of infection, hospitalization and mortality. Even as hopes of the pandemic’s end rise, these workers have greater difficulty obtaining access to the vaccine. Long-standing inequities in our health care system and distribution of income and employment-based benefits exacerbated these effects, as did vast disparities in the environmental quality of our neighbourhoods.

Recent policy proposals announced by the Biden administration would, if adopted, reduce poverty, particularly among children, and slow the increase in socio-economic inequality. Puting aside the issue of their political feasibility, given intransigent Republican opposition and concerns among some moderate Democrats about their price tag, the proposals would do litle to tear down the rigid physical barriers between American communities that reflect and sustain the inequalities Biden’s policies atempt to address. The effects of these policies, however well intentioned, will be primarily at the individual and family level. They fail to address the underlying structural problems that create our vast social divisions.

Providing tax credits, universal pre-k and child care, increasing the minimum wage and the supply of affordable housing, and expanding financial support for public education through community college are all worthy goals, but they will do litle to dismantle the physical separation based on race and class that exists in the US. Unless we take sustained actions that promote a structural realignment of our communities, and not merely a statistical one, we will not eliminate food deserts that contribute to high rates of obesity, reduce pollution that leads to higher rates of asthma and certain types of cancer, halt the “school to prison” pipeline, or eradicate the powerful sense of “otherness” that retards efforts at social transformation.

There are steps we can take, but they involve both fiscal costs and political risks. For example, we can provide incentives not just for the construction of affordable housing outside of low-income neighbourhoods; we can also provide incentives for low-income residents to relocate, such as tax breaks and expanded public transportation. We can fund community organizations to facilitate the difficult demographic and cultural transformations that will ensue. Resistance to such proposals will inevitably arise, not merely among white supremacists, but also among liberals whose embrace of equality oten goes litle beyond posting a Black Lives Mater placard in their front yards. If we are sincere about our goal of creating a more just and equal society, however, we must take on these risks without hesitation or equivocation.