Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Jobs & Economy - The Atlantic Cities: Growth is a mantra that cities, as well as nations and states, everywhere quest after. A growing number of economists caution that growth for growth’s sake does not necessarily equate to higher living standards or increased happiness.
I've never really thought about how studies define "growth" before... I think I've always assumed it was solely based on population, which this article implies is the case.
I found this article incredibly interesting, since I think that things other than simple population growth are absolutely important to take into account when considering the "growth" of a city. It's like someone saying that increasing the funding for something is all that's needed to improve, when really, it might be more effective to change how the money is being used (kind of a weird analogy, but I'm thinking along the lines of what Romney wants to do with the military... i.e. give it more money or "increase the population" rather than change how the money is being used or "improve creativity or innovation". ) More people (or more money) doesn't mean that it's better or improving.
I'd be really interested to know how they measure the contribution to "creativity", especially since Pittsburgh is #5. Is it based on art exhibits, or theatre, or something totally different?
I agree with Cat that more doesn't necessarily mean better. I do know that, however, sometimes more means more difficult, more ideas, more hardship, more inspiration- maybe more creativity with such a vast surplus of people/ ideas? Who would I be to say though that innovation doesn't come from major cities, what cities are great for is speed- speed of ideas and speed of output, speed is not always a good thing. Sometimes longevity is more important than direct, quick ideas, an more open environment might also be ideal for industry in different ways. Its interesting to consider the scope of what is/ isn't helpful, and who sometimes those things cannot be determined.
The second sentence of this article makes me question the articles' effectiveness: "A growing number of economists caution that growth for growth’s sake does not necessarily equate to higher living standards or increased happiness." Ummmm..... yes. That's pretty much always been true I though. I do agree, however, that this is a common misconception, in particular amongst elected officials. They often campaign for growth for growths sake, yet the study this article sites clearly supports that as not being true. Pittsburgh and Washington, DC are the classic examples, and I think most can extrapolate from this article that the creative and innovation centers are the most successful communities of our day.
This article didn't really surprise me. Though reading this did make me wonder why the areas with the most population increase are not also increasing creatively. you would think that there would be at least some overlap between the population increase and the creative or economic output. Also, I was surprised that New York was not higher up on the list for creative output. Artists are all ways talking about going to the big apple for artistic expression but for some reason its not even in the top two. Whatever the reason may be for New York, the rest of the article did not surprise me.
Coming from Florida I can understand that population and contribution don't necessarily correlate. There are plenty of retirees in Tampa, but not alot going on arts or technology-wise as compared to other places. I agree with Brian. I think that the idea that growth doesn't always lead to contribution has been known for awhile but it is great to see which areas contribute the most finally being brought to light. I thought that the areas with the most creativity might heavily correlate with those that contribute GDP and patents but it is interesting to see that the cities that were a little more industrial in earlier days are now contributing alot of creativity. This article also reaffirms contentedness in Pittsburgh.
It is no surprise to see that New York is the leading contributor to GDP for its vast population most likely due to its financial sectors and arts. I think it is interesting that Miami is the largest place for growth in population. I would think some of the states along the boarders of Mexico or Canada would see the greatest increases due to immigration and regular population growth. I am in no way surprised that Silicone Valley is where the majority of patents occur simply due to the fact of all the slight changes in technology through innovations and small alterations.
I think that these are interesting ways to measure states' growth. I am from New York City, which seems to be ever growing, almost to the point where I feel as though there are always too many people (that may just be the tourists though). On the other end of the spectrum there are states like Wyoming who have such a small population, but cover a large area of the country. A state's GDP, creativity, etc... are the more important factors to measure because these characteristics are what make the states special and useful.
I've often read articles that identify too heavy of a correlation between population and the different types of growth mentioned in this article, and I was never really sure what to believe. This one makes sense, and relies on data, which makes me inclined to believe it, especially since all the results correspond to what I already know about these various regions of the country.
I love that this article maps out growth such that population is gray and other growth factors in color. It is interesting to note how the eastern states are all pockets of growth, where the western state, particularly the coast, are large regions. I am surprised that there are not creative hubs on the west coast. I think of all the creative product and technology design (in addition to the usual west coast arts suspects such as film) on the west coast and I question how they defined creative growth. Either way, it is nice to see an article that quantifies growth as more than just GDP.
Mr. Florida (if that is his real name) brings up some important points in this article, albeit confusingly. His ill-placed prepositions aside, the questions around what we consider healthy growth, or maybe in a more general sense "success," will only become more important as our national economy adjusts to what I for one can only hope will be a more sustainable rate of growth. Ask ten economists to define a healthy growth rate and you will get ten barely understandable answers, but most will agree that a growth rate somewhere between 2% and 4% will sustain a business cycle over a longer term than anything above or below that range. The tech "asset bubble" of FY '99-'00 and the more recent housing bubble both enjoyed growth rates between 5% and 7%, but were doomed to recession, as we know now. Unfortunately, since the economy is shared whether we like it or not, the negative outcomes of these asset bubbles are endured by all, even while the rewards are enjoyed by only the relatively small percentage of Americans who already have a surplus of assets (read investment capital, or money making money instead of productivity making money). Meanwhile we are personally and collectively driven further into debt trying to maintain a standard of living in an economic landscape where things cost twice as much as they did 20 years ago, but most Americans, i.e. the bottom 50% of earners, are making substantially less than 100% more than they did in 1990. As we look to new understandings of growth and success, and learn to live with a rate of growth that allow wages to keep pace with cost of living more fairly, I hope, as the article vaguely suggests, we can find ways to more appropriately value innovation, creativity and even worker satisfaction. The idea of the "triple bottom line" is nothing new. Economists have long been pointing out that for them, unlike their brethren over in accounting, not every component of an economy boils down to a bean, and not all growth is good. Like a cancer, unchecked growth can clog and hinder and usurp and distort just as easily as it can enhance.
You would think that the reason why a location attracts people is because that place has something to offer that people can get in on and contribute to. Looks like that's not the case with creative thinking. While I would venture to say that more people in one place has more potential to be creatively stimulating, bigger doesn't always mean better. I do think that a heavily populated place is extremely useful for marketing and advertising ideas and products though, since a largely populated area is conducive to the spread of ideas and products.
11 comments:
I've never really thought about how studies define "growth" before... I think I've always assumed it was solely based on population, which this article implies is the case.
I found this article incredibly interesting, since I think that things other than simple population growth are absolutely important to take into account when considering the "growth" of a city. It's like someone saying that increasing the funding for something is all that's needed to improve, when really, it might be more effective to change how the money is being used (kind of a weird analogy, but I'm thinking along the lines of what Romney wants to do with the military... i.e. give it more money or "increase the population" rather than change how the money is being used or "improve creativity or innovation". ) More people (or more money) doesn't mean that it's better or improving.
I'd be really interested to know how they measure the contribution to "creativity", especially since Pittsburgh is #5. Is it based on art exhibits, or theatre, or something totally different?
I agree with Cat that more doesn't necessarily mean better. I do know that, however, sometimes more means more difficult, more ideas, more hardship, more inspiration- maybe more creativity with such a vast surplus of people/ ideas? Who would I be to say though that innovation doesn't come from major cities, what cities are great for is speed- speed of ideas and speed of output, speed is not always a good thing. Sometimes longevity is more important than direct, quick ideas, an more open environment might also be ideal for industry in different ways. Its interesting to consider the scope of what is/ isn't helpful, and who sometimes those things cannot be determined.
The second sentence of this article makes me question the articles' effectiveness: "A growing number of economists caution that growth for growth’s sake does not necessarily equate to higher living standards or increased happiness." Ummmm..... yes. That's pretty much always been true I though. I do agree, however, that this is a common misconception, in particular amongst elected officials. They often campaign for growth for growths sake, yet the study this article sites clearly supports that as not being true. Pittsburgh and Washington, DC are the classic examples, and I think most can extrapolate from this article that the creative and innovation centers are the most successful communities of our day.
This article didn't really surprise me. Though reading this did make me wonder why the areas with the most population increase are not also increasing creatively. you would think that there would be at least some overlap between the population increase and the creative or economic output. Also, I was surprised that New York was not higher up on the list for creative output. Artists are all ways talking about going to the big apple for artistic expression but for some reason its not even in the top two. Whatever the reason may be for New York, the rest of the article did not surprise me.
Coming from Florida I can understand that population and contribution don't necessarily correlate. There are plenty of retirees in Tampa, but not alot going on arts or technology-wise as compared to other places. I agree with Brian. I think that the idea that growth doesn't always lead to contribution has been known for awhile but it is great to see which areas contribute the most finally being brought to light. I thought that the areas with the most creativity might heavily correlate with those that contribute GDP and patents but it is interesting to see that the cities that were a little more industrial in earlier days are now contributing alot of creativity. This article also reaffirms contentedness in Pittsburgh.
It is no surprise to see that New York is the leading contributor to GDP for its vast population most likely due to its financial sectors and arts. I think it is interesting that Miami is the largest place for growth in population. I would think some of the states along the boarders of Mexico or Canada would see the greatest increases due to immigration and regular population growth. I am in no way surprised that Silicone Valley is where the majority of patents occur simply due to the fact of all the slight changes in technology through innovations and small alterations.
I think that these are interesting ways to measure states' growth. I am from New York City, which seems to be ever growing, almost to the point where I feel as though there are always too many people (that may just be the tourists though). On the other end of the spectrum there are states like Wyoming who have such a small population, but cover a large area of the country. A state's GDP, creativity, etc... are the more important factors to measure because these characteristics are what make the states special and useful.
I've often read articles that identify too heavy of a correlation between population and the different types of growth mentioned in this article, and I was never really sure what to believe. This one makes sense, and relies on data, which makes me inclined to believe it, especially since all the results correspond to what I already know about these various regions of the country.
I love that this article maps out growth such that population is gray and other growth factors in color. It is interesting to note how the eastern states are all pockets of growth, where the western state, particularly the coast, are large regions. I am surprised that there are not creative hubs on the west coast. I think of all the creative product and technology design (in addition to the usual west coast arts suspects such as film) on the west coast and I question how they defined creative growth. Either way, it is nice to see an article that quantifies growth as more than just GDP.
Mr. Florida (if that is his real name) brings up some important points in this article, albeit confusingly. His ill-placed prepositions aside, the questions around what we consider healthy growth, or maybe in a more general sense "success," will only become more important as our national economy adjusts to what I for one can only hope will be a more sustainable rate of growth. Ask ten economists to define a healthy growth rate and you will get ten barely understandable answers, but most will agree that a growth rate somewhere between 2% and 4% will sustain a business cycle over a longer term than anything above or below that range. The tech "asset bubble" of FY '99-'00 and the more recent housing bubble both enjoyed growth rates between 5% and 7%, but were doomed to recession, as we know now. Unfortunately, since the economy is shared whether we like it or not, the negative outcomes of these asset bubbles are endured by all, even while the rewards are enjoyed by only the relatively small percentage of Americans who already have a surplus of assets (read investment capital, or money making money instead of productivity making money). Meanwhile we are personally and collectively driven further into debt trying to maintain a standard of living in an economic landscape where things cost twice as much as they did 20 years ago, but most Americans, i.e. the bottom 50% of earners, are making substantially less than 100% more than they did in 1990. As we look to new understandings of growth and success, and learn to live with a rate of growth that allow wages to keep pace with cost of living more fairly, I hope, as the article vaguely suggests, we can find ways to more appropriately value innovation, creativity and even worker satisfaction. The idea of the "triple bottom line" is nothing new. Economists have long been pointing out that for them, unlike their brethren over in accounting, not every component of an economy boils down to a bean, and not all growth is good. Like a cancer, unchecked growth can clog and hinder and usurp and distort just as easily as it can enhance.
You would think that the reason why a location attracts people is because that place has something to offer that people can get in on and contribute to. Looks like that's not the case with creative thinking. While I would venture to say that more people in one place has more potential to be creatively stimulating, bigger doesn't always mean better. I do think that a heavily populated place is extremely useful for marketing and advertising ideas and products though, since a largely populated area is conducive to the spread of ideas and products.
Post a Comment