In his landmark book, “The Rise of the Creative Class,” Richard Florida divided the United States between thriving cities with large numbers of creative-class workers — artists, educators, entrepreneurs, professionals, scientists and engineers — and the down-in-the-mouth cities with fewer creatives that were doomed to stagnation if not outright decay. The creatives, Florida argued, were drawn to hip places like Boston, San Francisco and university towns noted for their cultural diversity and tolerance. The greatest danger to American prosperity, he argued in a follow-up treatise, “The Flight of the Creative Class,” was the rise of cultural narrow-mindedness and intolerance in America and emergence of competing creative centers abroad.
I think Florida makes some valid points but the real world is more complicated, as demonstrated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece written by Michael Barone, a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report. Barone does not address Florida’s creative-class theory explicitly, but his findings tend to undermine it. He categorizes American metropolitan areas into four groups:
- The Coastal Megalopolises. These include New York, L.A., San Francisco/San Jose, San Diego, Chicago, Miami, Boston and Washington. (Note: Most of these meet Florida’s criteria as centers of cultural diversity and tolerance.) To all outward appearances, they are prospering. But take a close look, says Barone. While immigrants are moving into these metros in large numbers, native Americans are leaving. New York had a domestic outflow of eight percent in the six years following 2000 and an immigrant inflow of six percent. “Americans are moving out of, not into, coastal California and South Florida, and in very large numbers they’re moving out of our largest metro areas.” Overall, populations are stagnant.
- Interior Boomtowns. These metros, none of which touch the Atlantic or Pacific coast, see surging populations. They couple significant immigrant inflow with even greater domestic inflow, plus a natural increase (births exceeding deaths) much higher than the coastal megalopolises. Dallas is now larger than San Francisco, Atlanta larger than Boston. Sacramento, Austin, Raleigh, Nashville and Richmond enjoy growing populations and economies.
- The Rust Belt. The Rust Belt cities, whose woes became apparent in the 1980s, are still suffering. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo and Rochester are losing population. A modest immigrant inflow fails to offset the exodus of native-born Americans. Natural increase is very low. Writes Barone: “Their economies are ailing, more of a drag on, than an engine for, the nation.”
- Static Cities. A number of cities are treading water demographically, with domestic outflow/immigrant inflow roughly matching. They’re holding their own economically, but none are surging ahead, and some are in danger of falling back. These include Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle, Denver, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas city and, closer to home, Norfolk.
Barone’s interest is to probe the political implications of all this movement. It portends well for Republicans nationally, he argues, as the population shifts from blue states to red states. I’m more interested in the dynamics of wealth creation than partisan politics, but the voting patterns of these metro areas serves as a rough substitute for the (Richard) Floridian value of tolerance of/worship of cultural diversity, a dominant Democratic Party theme.
Coastal Megalopolises: Kerry, 61 %
Interior Boomtowns: Bush 56%
Rust Belt: Kerry 54%
Static Cities: Kerry 52%
What Barone does not tell us is whether the migrating native-born Americans are members of the creative class. I would hypothesize that a disproportionate number of them are. They are certainly better educated than the immigrants who are replacing them. Regardless, a large segment of the population is picking up and leaving. What is driving them?
I would hypothesize that the metro areas experiencing the greatest outflow of native-born Americans have the highest costs: higher taxes, higher housing prices, longer (hence more expensive) commutes, higher general living costs, and so on. People may value hipness, coolness, diversity and tolerance, but they place a greater value on lower taxes, less expensive housing and shorter commutes — more disposable income and a greater material quality of life.
Undoubtedly, we could probe deeper. Young, unmarried people probably place a greater premium on “hipness.” Married couples with children arguably place a greater value on lower taxes, affordable housing and lower general living costs. If one percent of the population picks up and moves on the basis of such criteria each year, it’s barely noticeable year to year. But decade to decade, it represents a massive realignment.
