Crisis accelerates change. The CV19 lockdown precipitated a shift to remote-working for many people. Now lockdowns are lifting, and governments are keen to get people back into the physical office in order to increase city-centre footfall and ensure that bricks-and-mortar businesses can return to profitability - particularly those small businesses that rely on lunchtime traffic from the office. However, here we hit a problem. Governments want companies (plural) to succeed, and so their focus is on a return to previous ways of working... but individual companies are interested solely in their own (singular) viability and profitability. Individual companies have been hit hard by lockdown, we are seeing a lot of businesses being propped up by short-term government payouts, with the anticipation of large-scale unemployment once those payments inevitably cease. Companies are looking to cut costs, and retaining the current remote-working system offers huge benefits both in the short-term (no requirement to solve the unsolvable problem of getting everyone back into the office whilst still retaining social distancing) and in the longer-term (no need to pay huge city-centre rents and the associated costs of running a large office, insurance, utilities, maintenance, etc).
Many people want to continue to remote-work, companies have noticed that productivity has remained consistent during lockdown, and that continued remote-working offers huge financial savings... perhaps the death knell has been sounded for the culture of presenteeism.
If we can assume that a large amount of the new remote-working due to CV19 will remain remote in the longer-term, then does this help to reduce inequality within societies? The situation applies to many countries, but taking the UK as an example, cost of living in London (and to an extent the wider SE) is considerably higher than in the rest of the country. So with no need for people working for 'London companies' to live within or in close proximity to London, will there be a population shift towards rural and cheaper areas, a sort of reverse brain-drain of people still working 'London jobs' but now living elsewhere in the country? And the other side of this, will it create new job opportunities for people in poorer areas? A young graduate in a poor northern town might previously have been limited in their job opportunities because of a desire to remain in the area (for social or other reasons)... but can now apply for and work a 'city centre' job without leaving the area?
And looking further, will this then, eventually, lead to greater equality of opportunity across the world, if all you need to work a 'London job' or a 'New York job' is an internet connection and the ability to speak the language?
