The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent [ペーパーバック]

RF has written an excellent followup to his first book. His concept that the U.S. is suffering a "brain drain" has been discussed pretty thoroughly by other reviewers, so I won't rehash it, other than to say that I think he's right on the button. The title, in fact, reflects only part of the story: what I found most stimulating about the book is his suggestions for the future.

I think that his recommendations about education are excellent. He does NOT say that a college education is a necessary prerequisite for prosperity; rather, he points out that the present U.S. educational system doesn't foster (and indeed squelches) the creativity, flexibility, and initiative that students need to succeed in today's volatile economy. While training a nation of workplace drones and mindless consumers might have been expedient in the age of large factories, it's counterproductive today and represents an immense waste of human abilities, especially if we're losing the influx of immigrant talent and ambition that has fueled our economy up to now. (Current educational reforms, e.g., No Student Left Behind, are a step backwards in their focus on rote memorization and standardized tests; the aim appears to be to create easily measurable results to make a political point.)

It's noteworthy that RF doesn't take sides politically: while he bewails the political climate that has led to the "flight of the creative class," he also deplores the increased polarization of the major parties, which has more to do with Washington power politics than with voters' actual beliefs. (He's right about that: it's a pity that the "purple America" map from the 2004 election reproduced so poorly in the book, because it makes the important point that we're not nearly as divided a nation as we're made out to be.) He faults the Republicans for being wedded to old-money industries such as oil, but faults the Democrats equally for buying into the nineteenth-century business model by catering to unions. And both parties have failed equally in recognizing what truly drives the U.S. economy (hint to some previous reviewers: it's not just money).

As for the commonly expressed criticism that RF is glorifying an effete, self-centered "creative class" while ignoring the unwashed masses, do the math: these people prospered economically not because they inherited money, but because they WORKED FOR IT. Regional success stories such as Silicon Valley and Seattle were built, not by trust-fund babies (or, for that matter, on Enron-style accounting), but by people who committed themselves passionately to a project, took financial risks, and worked long hours. His suggestions in the later sections of the book have to do, not with keeping the "creative class" exclusive, but with improving both the work environment and the educational system so that the rest of society can draw upon their own creativity to achieve the same personal and financial success.

I've found the negative reviews to be perplexing- such vitriolic diatribes and very little critical thought evident- I wonder if the book was actually read by these reviewers. This is a really good book that deserves to be read and discussed. Florida doesn't pretend to have all of the answers. People with pulses and a modicum of creativity seem to understand the premises he puts forth. For those looking to blame someone, anyone, for the economic equity gap evident in this country, Florida is an easy target. Folks, don't kill the messenger, he may have something to teach you. The cultural insularity and puritanical values perpetuated in current public policy have long term consequences. Wake up!

This book is an extension of Florida's "Creativity Thesis" from his earlier book (although this work certainly stands on its own). His primary theme is that a new economic category has begun to dominate our society in a challenging way: the "creative class," a broad term defining those who work in idea-based jobs. It doesn't mean merely artists and musicians but encompasses lawyers, scientists, and others that consult, advise, invent, etc. This group is fast becoming a critical part of any region's economic success, and Florida attempts to sort out the consequences. Importantly, for success a city must have more than job availability. To attract the creative types a city must offer diversity and lifestyle opportunity too -- a thesis I find humane and reasonable. Cities must provide fulfillment, as well as dollars.

Florida argues that the United States must now compete globally for talent in order to succeed. We are currently failing, he argues, by limiting opportunities for immigrants which are the key to diversity and economic drive. Florida's is not a gloom and doom image, but a suggestion that the playing field is leveling -- although the US currently has an important advantage of having vibrant, connected and exciting cities to attract creative talent.

Florida's boldest argument in political terms is the importance of immigration. Immigration is the lifeblood of a creative economy, and Florida notes that immigration is important both in its quantity and its diversity. Immigrants from varied countries will add to the creativity the new economy requires. The current drop in immigration alarms Florida; immigrants must make up, for example, the shortfall in current science research by that of American citizens. This interchange of immigrants benefits all: this is not merely about the US succeeding but the benefits economies and expertise of home countries too.

Florida's examples are varied and sometimes surprising. His emphasis on the paramount importance of education explains why Ireland succeeds while Italy languishes. Successful cities such as San Francisco and Seattle provide the elements of 1. technology, 2, talent, 3. diversity he sees necessary for the right creative mix. Curiously New York City is absent from much of his discussion. He notes that due to lack of a creative element to their economy, China and India are not the future of economic development. On the downside, Florida warns that the creative economy has losing cities too, and has the consequence of stratifying an economy to extremes of wealth and poverty, such as St. Louis, Detroit, and Buffalo.

Although this is an excellent book, as a nitpicky complaint I would add that the charts Florida uses -- 2d information drawn as a 3d aspect -- are cheesy and flawed, as presenting 2d information in perspectival view visually exaggerates the force of charted information. The arguments are interesting enough with this ridiculous razzle-dazzle.