Richard Florida, author of "The Rise of the Creative Class" and one of the formulators of the thoroughly-debunked "gay marriage is good for the economy" meme is out with a new article for the Atlantic comically called "The Geography of Tolerance".
Oh please. This strikes me as yet another elitist attempt to badger the "unevolved" masses into being more like their liberal neighbors by selecting indicators and measurements that Florida has decided represent good and laudable values and attitudes. For instance, Florida's metrics for how "tolerant" an area of the country includes factors such as "The Gay Index" (the concentration of gays and lesbians).
Florida expounds:
"Openness to gays and lesbians similarly reflects an ecosystem that is open to new people and new ideas. It’s amazing how consistently people have misconstrued what my colleagues and I have had to say about the connection between gays and economic growth. They miss the point. A strong and vibrant gay community is a solid leading indicator of a place that is open to many different kinds of people. Ronald Inglehart, who has studied the relationship between culture and economic growth for some four decades, has noted that the lack of societal acceptance of gays is the most significant remaining bastion of intolerance and discrimination around the world..."
...Really? "The most significant remaining bastion of intolerance and discrimination around the world" isn't say, apartheid, but "lack of societal acceptance of gays"? Pardon me for not trusting Florida's "geography of tolerance" if absurd claims like this constitute his starting point.
As for Florida's complaint that people have "misconstrued" what he has argued about gays and economic growth, actually I would argue that people have haven't misconstrued Florida -- they've refuted him. Steven Malanga, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute argued in the Wall Street Journal that Florida's "creative class" thesis was nothing more than "economic snake oil".
This Atlantic article by Florida is an abridged and revised excerpt from his new book, "The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited" which is out this month, which means we can expert more charts and graphs of this kind in the future.
But snake oil in a new bottle is still just the same old snake oil.
19 Comments
Years ago I moved into a neighborhood that was somewhat dilapidated in a not-so-great area of the city. But there were five or six gay households on the block who kept their houses very nice and improved them over the years. The block ultimately turned into one of the nicer, safer blocks, largely, I believe, because of the gays living there.
But the fact that homosexuals improve neighborhoods is not an argument for changing the definition of marriage to accommodate them, nor is it a reason to allow public schools to force children to be taught that homosexuality is a good lifestyle choice equal to a heterosexual life.
"But the fact that homosexuals improve neighborhoods is not an argument for changing the definition of marriage "
It is more of an argument against changing the definition of marriage because it demonstrates that these miscreants do not need any additional support due to all of the disposable income their lifestyle choice affords them.
The mere use of the phrase "creative class" wreaks of snobbishness, just as this fabricated Geography of Tolerance smells like something I stepped in.
Florida gets his causation backwards (probably intentionally)
The "creative class" is not creative in terms of reproduction. Socially liberal area's of the country tend to be urban bastions that attract young single people; New York, Atlanta, L.A., and so fourth. Within these bastions people expouse the group think of social liberalism more readily on opinion surveys.
Florida then misrepresents this to pretend that (somehow) this enviroment promotes economic growth. It does not, it simply attracts large numbers of young people because thats were the jobs are and that were you have to go to be in certqain industries.
Florida gets his causation backwards (probably intentionally)
The "creative class" is not creative in terms of reproduction. Socially liberal area's of the country tend to be urban bastions that attract young single people; New York, Atlanta, L.A., and so fourth. Within these bastions people expouse the group think of social liberalism more readily on opinion surveys.
Florida then misrepresents this to pretend that (somehow) this enviroment promotes economic growth. It does not, it simply attracts large numbers of young people because thats were the jobs are and that were you have to go to be in certain industries.
How is something that ended in 1994, like apartheid did, "The most significant remaining bastion of intolerance and discrimination around the world"?
While a agree the claim is over the top, and dislike the whole my oppression is worse than your oppression foolishness, I don't think rebutting an over the top claim with one that is patently false helps your case any.
My anecdotal evidence is that when gays move into a neighborhood, the property values go up and the area improves. I know mayors of cities have outreach programs to this end. Really, it also comes down to income. If you have DINKS (dual-income, no kids) with two males pulling typical male salaries, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know there is a lot more disposable income available.
It is interesting to see the chart. It matches closely with the blue vs. red states, higher education levels, and incomes brackets. Call it elitist. I call it facts.
@Fitz,
You say that the only reason young people move to the cities is because that is where the jobs are, yet you also claim that that environment does not promote economic growth. Wouldn't the places that promote economic growth be where the jobs are? How are these places growing if there are no jobs? And, how are there jobs in those nasty, liberal cities if there is no economic growth?
Your argument is self-contradictory.
sigh----why is the term "elitist" used. Do you not mean "educated"?
flan -
The difference between elitist and educated is that elitist believe that just because they are educated they are somehow know better about everything.. As an educated person, I can tell you I know many educated people who don't know nearly as much as having an education makes them think that they do.
You're right Snobbiness = Tolerance.
Better called "The Geography of the Trojan Horse."
John Colgan
I'm saying the social attitudes of those in these cities (and I never charaterized them as "nasty") is not what is responsible for job growth.
Im confused. People who are educated are wrong for believing that they are more educated than the non-educated?
So, Im an elitist because I know that I know more than someone without my level of education?
Richard Florida's favorite 'tolerant' cities are some of the most racially segregated places on Earth.
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer
New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Boston ... intensely segregated all.
Again, folks should really study this data by typing in any 'progressive' American city to discover how perfectly segregated it is.
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer
These urban progressives are emphatically segregationist in their own living patterns throughout America.
Austin -
Ah, ah, ah, there you go confusing education and knowledge again.
Some of the least knowledgeable people I know have a college degree and some of the most knowledgeable people I know do not. The elitists are the ones who think that having an education makes them de facto knowledgeable. Like you, Austin. You must be sooooo smart in everything because you have a degree in, what, Womens' Studies?
"You must be sooooo smart in everything because you have a degree in, what, Womens' Studies?"
Scratch a homophobe, find a misogynist.
Of course, Austin didn't claim to be "sooo smart in everything," but sometimes people are so insecure that they project their own insecurities onto others (and then imagine people doing and saying things they never did or said so that they can respond defensively with ad hominem.)
KEYBOARD WARRIORS UNITE!!!
Emily said: "Of course, Austin didn't claim to be "sooo smart in everything,"
But here's what he did say in response to my comment that educated people aren't necessarily knowledgeable: "People who are educated are wrong for believing that they are more educated than the non-educated?"
He is so blind to his own eliticism that he replies with a sarcastic statement intended to mock my clear comment. The sarcasm, rather than replying with a genuine question, is pure effeminate male.
So, yeah, he implicitly claimed to be so smart in everything. As for misogyny, I have nothing against women's studies, except when guys major in it. It's a bogus major anyway; leads to nothing but more poor people who can't get jobs because they picked stupid majors.