An asymmetry of suffering

One of the issues about which I have been concerned during Covid-19 is an impression that we have top quintile (income, education, familial functionality, etc) policy decision-makers arriving at decisions which have outsized impact on the bottom quintiles.  We won't know the full impact on the bottom quintile for a good while though there is a not unreasonable probability that the effects will be lasting.  

The above concern has rested on snippets of information here and there but has rested more on anecdote than on plentiful empirical data.

Part of the concern is that it will take a long while to see some of those possible behavioral impacts on the bottom quintile because public policy has so far, at the cost of massive deficits, been surprisingly effective at mitigating household income levels.  The patchy data seems to indicate much less reduction in household income than one might have anticipated.

A new report,  2021 Emerging Real Estate Trends from the Urban Land Institute, indicates that I have been correct in the belief that the impact of lockdowns have been far less on the top quintile than on the bottom.

Click to enlarge.

Among the bottom quintile of income earners, the percentage being unable to work was twice as great than among top quintile income earners (roughly 40% versus 20%).  Likewise, the percentage among the top quintile able to work from home during the lockdowns has been 75% greater than those in the bottom quintile (roughly 70% versus 40%).  

The bottom quintile are living with the negative consequences of the top quintile decision-makers.  The top quintile decision-makers are dramatically shielded from those harsh consequences.  There is an asymmetry of suffering and it is unclear that that asymmetry is understood by decision-makers.