In this brave new world, essential workers will be paid what they deserve. Employees will work where they want, when they want, in a secure (non-casual) job. Newly empowered workers will pack up, leave, and join the Great Resignation if their demands are not met.

Supply chains will be transformed. "Just in time" supply chains will be replaced with "just in case", with a big dollop of "Made in Australia" for good measure. Our irrational fear of debt and deficits will be a thing of the past, as politicians declare a truce and Australians see the value of running deficits during times of crisis.

Sound good? Then I've got some bad news for you. If you're hoping for a fundamental restructure in the way the economy operates, expect to be disappointed. The underlying drivers and incentives that produced the above outcomes haven't changed, and the political will to change them is nowhere to be seen.

In some instances, that's a good thing.

Start with essential workers. The pandemic has revealed in no uncertain terms that nurses, teachers, cleaners, and other overlooked and underpaid workers are vital to our society and our economy. The country doesn't function without them. They bore the brunt of the pandemic. They put themselves at risk while the rest of us baked sourdough, watched Tiger King, and discovered the wonders of "click and collect".

The fact that these workers get paid a pittance only added to our sense of guilt. Paying them a higher salary seems like the least we can do. But will we? Will anything change after the pandemic?

It seems unlikely. The economics of why nurses, teachers, and cleaners get paid lower salaries hasn't changed. Wages will be low in an industry if the supply of workers outstrips the demand for those workers. Cardiovascular surgeons get paid a lot because there aren't very many of them. The barriers to entry to become a cardiovascular surgeon are much higher than the barriers to become a nurse, teacher, or cleaner. Combined with institutional rigidities that often prevent wages from rising - such as not allowing higher salaries for the best performing teachers - and its little wonder why wages are low in these industries.

Wages for essential workers will only change if these underlying drivers change. There's no evidence this is happening. The government could intervene by mandating higher wages be paid to these workers - but given firms tend to employ fewer workers when they cost more to hire, unemployment would likely be the result unless productivity also rises. And are consumers willing to pay the higher prices for healthcare, aged care, education and food? What about consumers on low incomes? Are politicians willing to bear the blame for rising prices? Look no further than Joe Biden's nosediving popularity to see the political cost of inflation.

We can be equally suspicious about the "Great Resignation" and the alleged empowering of workers. The argument is that workers, particularly in the United States, have had enough. No longer will they tolerate low pay with poor conditions. If their bosses don't give them higher salaries, more secure work, and the ability to work where and when they want, they'll pack up and leave.

Sounds big, but the evidence is small. The United States has indeed seen a record number of job changes. But resignations sank during the pandemic. The "Great Resignation" is much less great when we account for these pent-up resignations delayed by the pandemic. Surveys on why people are resigning similarly don't indicate a worker revolt. Job satisfaction is at a record high in America, according to Gallup. The number of British workers who would like a job with fewer hours and less pay remains in line with the long-run average.

The tug of war between workers and businesses - evidenced by the share of economic output that goes to workers rather than capital - reaches the same conclusion. Analysis by The Economist found that while workers were the winners in the early stages of the pandemic, the pendulum has since swung back in favour of capital. Surging traffic on Sydney roads suggests the phenomenon of working from home might be more temporary than people think.

Supply chains took a bruising throughout the pandemic. Some have predicted that "just in time" supply chains will be replaced with "just in case". This is both unlikely, and a bad idea. After all, businesses aren't stupid. They didn't adopt "just in time" supply chains by accident. They adopted them because it saves them money. Any business which spends thousands or millions of dollars warehousing inventory "just in case" a once-in-100-years pandemic pops up would very quickly find themselves out of business. Indeed, if a business was able to be profitable while operating a "just in case" supply chain, we would ask very serious questions about the level of competition in that industry.

MORE ADAM TRIGGS:

And what about debt and deficits? Can we expect any change there? Economists spend much of their lives explaining that debt and deficits are not necessarily a bad thing. If the benefit of government spending exceeds the cost, then it makes perfect sense to spend the money, even if it results in a budget deficit. The debt accumulated during COVID played a critical role in preventing a catastrophic long-term increase in unemployment. Given both major political parties have now blown the budget in response to a crisis - Labor during the global financial crisis and the Coalition during COVID - you might think that the political rhetoric around debt and deficits will return to a sensible centre.

Think again. The federal election is still months away, but already we are seeing the same tired rhetoric around "tax and spend" and "Who do you trust?", as well as nonsense comparisons between government budgets and the budget drawn up by Mum and Dad around the kitchen table.

To be sure, there are plenty of things we have learnt from the pandemic. We've learnt that immigration doesn't hurt employment, wages, or the government budget - old news to economists. We've learnt that when you give more money to poor people, they spend it on groceries, paying bills, and reducing debt, not alcohol and gambling. We've been reminded that facts, science, and institutions matter.

And some things will change. We've seen decades' worth of technological adoption within the space of months. Much of the way we shop, learn, work, and relax will be permanently different. More automation, more robots, and more disruption seems inescapable.

But before we believe the hype of a new world order, ask yourself this question: have the underlying drivers and incentives of the previous world changed? If not, then don't get your hopes up.