Okay, I've heard debate back and forth about this. What do you all think about Richard Florida's book, The Rise of the Creative Class? Some academics have questioned its methodology, grouping, and central message. City leaders deficient in members of this "creative class" dismiss the notion that these workers mean more to the city/regional economy.
I seem to agree with its message, but the solution proffered is a formidable one. The cities where these workers (the artists, engineers, architects, researchers, writers, designers of all sorts, web developers and other IT personnel) thrive are the ones that will succeed in the future. Florida argues that cities' reliance on financial incentives (giveaways) and sports teams is misguided; that the future tigers of the economy will be the ones that cultivate a certain quality of life that attracts these workers. By quality of life, he means artistic and recreational opportunities and open-minded residents and employers. The companies will locate where the talent is.
While agree with him about the importance of quality of life, using it as an economic development tool can be tricky. How can cities develop that "quality of life" when the interests of these workers are likely to be scattered? Still, the easy, go-for-broke chasing of plants and other large scale employers does seem misguided. These jobs, if they do happen, either pay low wages, don't necessarily build human capital and innovation, and are recession- and cycle-sensitive. What do you all think?
I seem to agree with its message, but the solution proffered is a formidable one. The cities where these workers (the artists, engineers, architects, researchers, writers, designers of all sorts, web developers and other IT personnel) thrive are the ones that will succeed in the future. Florida argues that cities' reliance on financial incentives (giveaways) and sports teams is misguided; that the future tigers of the economy will be the ones that cultivate a certain quality of life that attracts these workers. By quality of life, he means artistic and recreational opportunities and open-minded residents and employers. The companies will locate where the talent is.
While agree with him about the importance of quality of life, using it as an economic development tool can be tricky. How can cities develop that "quality of life" when the interests of these workers are likely to be scattered? Still, the easy, go-for-broke chasing of plants and other large scale employers does seem misguided. These jobs, if they do happen, either pay low wages, don't necessarily build human capital and innovation, and are recession- and cycle-sensitive. What do you all think?