. .~ :~
-~ i ..
/ .. __ :].' ,'" / f
... Richard Florida ~.. ~- ~ - ~ ~ i: Editors' Introduction f ~ - In The Condition of th e Working Class in 1844 (p. 46), and in subsequent collaborations with his colleague Karl ~ i; Marx, Friedrich Engels announced the emergence of a new social class - the proletariat or industrial working ~ -· class - th at was destined to have a world-historical impact on th e shape and content of human society at the time Ii: of the Industrial Revolution and th e rise of the industrial city. In Th e Rise of the Creative Class, Ri chard Florida ~-· f:: describes the emergence of a new socio-economic class, one that creates ideas and innovations rather than f products an d 1s the driving force of post-industrialism rather than industrialism. Florida asks us to ask ourselves: ~ will the new "creative class" have as important and revolutionary an impact on the twenty-first-century information based economy and society as the working class had in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? According to Fl orida, there are two layers to the creative class. First, there is a "Super-Creative Core" consisting of "scientists and engineers, university professors, poets and novelists, artists, entertainers, actors, designers and architects, as well as the thought leadership of modern society: nonfiction writers, editors, cultural figure s, think-tank researchers, analysts and other opinion-makers." Second, there are "creative professionals" - those who "work in a wide range of knowledge-intensive industries such as high-tech sectors, financial services, ~- the legal and health care professions, and business management" - as well as many technicians and paraprofessionals who now add "creative value" to an enterprise by having to think for themselves. All these, taken together, constitute a true economic class that "both underpins and informs its members' socia l, cultural and lifestyle choices." Florida is quick to note that he is not using the term class to denote "the ownership of property, capital or th e means of production." On th e contrary, he argues, if we use those old Marxist categories, we are still talking about old-styl e, bourgeoisie-and-proletarian capitalism. In th e new postmodern, post-industrial economic order, the "members of the Creative Class do not own and control any significant property in th e physical sense. Th eir property - which stems from th eir creative capacity - is an intangible because it is literally in their heads." Many cities have embraced Florida's th esis about the creative class. Eager to attract "creative class" residen ts, some cities have sponsored special arts districts and diversity festivals as a part of th eir redevelopment policies in an attempt to jump-start lagging economies. In some cases, such as Denver's LoDo neighborhood, arts-friendly policies - along with new light-rai l transit an d a downtown baseball stadium - succeeded in revivifying what had been a decaying warehouse district. In other cases, such as San Francisco's adoption of planning regulations supporting the building of "live-work" lofts fo r artists and other creatives, was arguably just another ploy on th e Part of housing developers with connections al City Hall. Inevitably. a critical opposition to "creative class" theory has developed. Some have called Florida "elitist," and Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute. writing in th e Wall Street Journal, has Galled Fl orida the peddler of "economic snake oil" and the developer of "trendy. New Age theories" that are just RI C HARD FLORIDA
"plain wrong." It is lower taxe s and public safety, not arts festival s and lively gay neighborhoods, according to ;i:id -;_, 111 n ;on ic IL: r Malanga, that attract the industr ies that bring high employment and robust tax revenues for municipalities. c!C'-~n i . ~ !Ti C funL tlOll Richard Florida 1s the director of th e Martin Prosperity Institute at th e Rotman School of Management at the eni.: es. co1h.m1ptior University of Toronto. He has taught at MIT, Harvard, and Carnegie Mellon and is the founder of th e Creative Group :den ti ties aii Ho w In and Catalytix, two business·communications·and·strategy consulting firms. The Rise of the Creative Class received I ;im nlll talking i the Washington Monthly's Political Book Award for 2002 and was praised by the Harvard Business Review as vl"l4: of i.h e o .vrn: r:;hlp or of the most important "breakthrough ideas" of recent soc1o·economic analysis. Florida has also published The F!ig ;; ,110duc1iun. If we U' of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent (New York: HarperColl1ns, 2005), Cities and th ~e ~ s e. we are still Creative Class (New York: Rou tl edge, 2005), Who's Your City? (New York: Basic Books, 2009), and The Great of ca pirulisis who o Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity (New York: HarperCollins, 2010). duction. and workt For intellectual sources of Florida's thesis about the creative class, see Fritz Machlup, The Production and analy rica l Uliliry re Distribution of Knowledge in the Un ited States (Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 1962), Daniel Bell, The of bQurgeoisie and 1 Coming of Post-Industrial Society (New York: Basic Books, 1973), and Peter Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society Most members or t ~ (New York: Harper Business, 1995). For critiques of the Florida thesis, se e Allen J. Scott, "Creative Cities: control any sigrnfi c::: Conceptual Issues and Pol icy Questions" (Journal of Urban Affairs, 28, 2006) and Michele Heyman and Their property ···· v Christopher Farticy, "It Takes a Vill age: A Test of the Creative Class, Social Capital and Human Capital Th eories· capacity - is an 111ta1 (Jo urnal of Urban Affairs, 44, 2009). heads. And it is ir resear ch and interv11 Creative Class do nc social grouping, th T he 1ise of the Creative Economy has had a profound which curiosity and originality are indispensable. tastes. desires and r effect on the sorting of people into social groups . . The young flocking to the ci ties to devote them not be as distinct or classes. O thers have speculated over the years on selves to "a rt, .. "writing," ··creative w ork" - anything, Working Class in ito lhe rise of new classes in the advanced industri al vi rtually, that liberates them from the presence of coherence. economies. During the 1960s. Peter Dru cker and Fritz boss or superior - are aspirant X peo ple. . If. as M achlup described the growing role and importance [C. W1ight) Mills has sai d. the middle-class person is of the new group of workers th ey dubbed "know "always somebody's man," the X person is nobody's. THE NEW CLAS~ ledge workers." Writing in th e 1970s. Daniel Bell . . X people are independent-minded .. .. They pointed to a new, more meritocra tic cl ass structure of ad ore the work they do. and they do it until they The distinguishing d scientists. engineers. managers and administrators are fi nally ca rri ed out. "retirement" being a concept is that its members c brought on by the shift from a manufacturing to a meaningful only to hired personnel or wage slaves to "crea te meaningfu "postindustrial " economy. The sociologist Erik Olin who despi se their work. Class as consisting Wright has w ri tten for decades about the rise of wha t Crea tive Core of th is he ca lled a new "professional-manageri al"' class Writing in 2000. David Brooks outlined the blending engineers, university Robert Re ich more recenrly advanced the term of bohemian ;.in d bourgeois values in a new social artists. entertainers, ·symbolic analysts" to describe the members ot the grouping he dubbed the Bobos. My take on Brook.s's as well as the thoug workforce who manipulate ideas and symbols All of synthesis . . . is ra ther different. stressing the very trans nonfiction writers. e< these observers caught economic aspects of lhe ce ndence of th es e two categories in a new creative resea rchers. analys em erging class structure that [ describe here. ethos. Whe th er th ey are sof " O thers have examined emergi ng social norms The main point I want to make here is that the architects or ti lmm and value systems. Paul Fussell presc ient ly captured basis of the Creati ve Class is economic. I define it as crea tive process. I cl ( many that I now attribute to the Creative Class in his an economic class and argue that its economic func work as producing theory oflhe "X Class. ·· Near the end of his 1983 book tion both underpins an d informs its members· social. readily transferable a Class - atter a wiuy romp through status markers cultural and lifestyle choices. T he Creanve Class ing a product that ca that deiineate. say. the upper middle class from 'high consists of people who add economic value through coming up with a t: proles" - Fussell noted the presence of a growing "X" th eir creativity. It thus includes a great many know appiiC'd in many cas group that seemed ro deft existing ca tegories ledge workers. symbolic analysts an d professional and be performed again technical workers, but ernphasizes th eir true role in the rh<.: Creative Class en [Y]ou are not born an X person .. you earn X economy. My defin1 oon of class emphasizes the way it's what th ey are r perso nhood by a strenuous effort of di sc overy in peopl e orga nize thernselves into social groupings ::.olvirrg. th ei r work rn "THE CREATIVE CLASS "
JJ1d cornrnon identities based principally on their building a better mousetrap. but noticing first that i1 economic function. Their soci al and cultural prefer better mousetrap would be a handy thin g to have. ence$. con sumption and buying habits. and their social Beyond this core group. the Creative Class al so identities all Aow from this. includes ··cre:.irive professionals" who 'Nork in a wide l ani nor talking here about economic class in terms range of knowledge-intensive in'dustries such as high of the ownership of property, capital or the means of rech sectors. financial services. the legal and health producti on. l f we use class in this traditional Marxian care protessions. and business managemern. These sense. we are still talking about a ba sic structure people engage in creative problem solving. drawing of capitalists who own and control the means of pro on complex bodies of knowledge to solve spec1tic duction. and workers under their employ But little problems. Doing so rypically requires a high degree of analytical utility remains in these broad categories formal education and thus a high level of human of bourgeoisie and proletarian. capitalist and worker. capital. People who do this kind of work may some Most members of the Creative Class do not own and times come up with methods or products that rum control any significant property in the physical sense. our to be widely useful. but it's not part of the basic Their property - which stems from rheir creative job description. What they are required to do regularly capacity -1s an intangible because it is literally in their is think on their own. They apply or combine stand heads And it is increasingly clear from my tield ard approaches in unique ways to fit the situation. research and interviews that while the members of the exercise a great deal of judgment. perhaps try som·e Crearive Class do not yet see th emselves as a unique thing radically new from time to time. Creative Class ial grouping, they actually share many similar people such as physicians. lawyers and managers es. desi res and preferences. This new class may do this kind of work in dealing with the many varied • be as di stinct in this regard as the industrial cases they encounter. In the course of their work, ' {king Class in its heyday, but it has an emerging they may al so be involved in testing and designing t1erence. new techniques. new treatment protocols. or new management methods and even develop such things th emselves. As a person continues to do more of this THE NEW CLASS STRUCTURE latter work. perhaps through a career shift or pro motion, that person moves up to the Super-Creative , e distinguishing characteristic of the Creative Class Core: producing transferable. widely usable new forms is that its members engage in work whose func tion is is now their primary fun ction. . "create meaningful new fonns." l deflne the Creative [.. J L as consisting of two components. The Super- As the creative content of other lines of work eative Core of this new cl ass includes scientists and increases - as the relevant body of knowledge becomes ' { engineers. university professors. poets and novelists. more complex, and people are more valued for th eir artists. entertainers. actors, designers and architects. ingenuity in applying it - some now in the Working as well as the thought leadership of modem society: Cl ass or Service Class may move into the Creative nonfiction writers. editors. cul tural figures. think-tank Class and even the Super-Creative Core. Alongside the researc hers. analysts and other opinion-makers. growth in essentially creative occupations. then, we Whether th ey arc software programmers or engineers. are also seeing growth in creative content across other architecrs or filmmakers. they fully engage in the occupations. A prime example is th e secretary in , reative process. l define the highest order of creative today's pared-down offices. In many cases this person work J S producing new forms or designs that are not only takes on a host of tasks once performed readily tran sferable and widely useful - such as design by a large secretarial staff. but becomes a true office ; .g a product that can be widely made. sold and used: manager - channeling flows of informati on, devising corning up with a theorem or strategy that can be and setting up new systems. often making key applied in many cases; or composing music tha t can decisions on the fly . This person contributes more be performed again and again. People at the core of than "intelligence" or computer skills. She or he adds the Creative Class engage in this kind of work regularly: creative value. Everywhere we look. creativity 1s it's what th ey are paid to do. Along with problem increasingly valued. Firms and organizations value it solving. their work may entail problem finding: not just for the result s that it can produce and individuals R I CH ARD FLO RIDA
value it :is a rou te ro sel f-e xpression an d 1ob sa t1sli.Jc 1.vorkers in 1900 ro 2.3 million m 1950 before T);c tect 1)n ic :
rion. Bottom line: As creativity becomes more va lued. crossmg 10 million in 1991 In doing so. it increased tJkt: r ~ place t 1vc r th e Creative Class grows. its sh are of the workforce from 2 5 percenr in 1900 Serv:,_· ,: Clas:; pull Nor all workers are on rrack to join. however. For to 5 percent in 1960. 8 percenr in 1980 and 9 percent ! 'i8U rt \ VJS r;· in:;rance in many lower-end se rvice jobs we tind the in 1990. before reachi ng t 2 percent by 1999. rnarKrng the tir':;t ti trend 11Jnnin g the opposi te way: the jobs continue to • The traditional Working Class has today 33 million W o~l:im; Clc1ss 1s z be ··de-ski ll ed" or "de-cremiticd." For a coumer worker workers. or u quaner of th e US workforce. It both rhe Creative dt a fas t-food ch ain. literally every word and move is consists of people in producti on operations. trans puikd ahead of th• dicta ted by a corporate template: "Welcome to Food port ation and materials moving, and repair an d with 55 million wt Fix. si r. may I take your order? Would you like nachos rnain temrnce and cons truction work. The percent relative terms thar with that'/" This 1ob has been thoroughly taylorized - age of th e workforce in working-class occupations r;me ;n th e past cc the worker is given far less latitude for exercisi ng peaked at 40 percent in 19 20. where it hovered until flwse changes creativity than the waitress at the old. independent 1950. before slipping to 36percent in 1970. and then a dt:(·per. more ger neighborhood diner enjoyed. W orse yet, th ere arc declining sharply over the pa st two decades. chan ge. The declir many people who do not have Jobs. and who are being The Service Clo ss includes 55.2 million workers and parcel of the d left beh ind because they do not have the background or 43 perce nt of the U.S workforce, making it th e wh ich it was based and tra ming to be pan of this new sys tem. larges t group ·of all. It includes workers in lower patte rn s upon whr [.. l wage. lower-a uronorny service occupations such as The Working Cla: health ca re, toad preparation. personal care. clerical did in setting the work and other lower-end office work. Alongside Arnuican life -· for COUNTING THE CREATIVE CLASS the decline of th e W orking Class. the past century rn anilgenal cl ass. V has seen a tremendous rise in the Service Class. of th e Working Cki It is one thing to provide a compelling description from 5 million workers in 1900 to its current total of large:;t class. the s. of the changing cl ass compositlon of society, as writers more than ten times that amount. Service Class has like Bell. Fussell or Reich have done. But I believe it is can be understoo also important to calibrate and quan tify the magni tude It's also useful to look at th e changing composite Crea tive Class. Th• of the change at hand. Let's take a look at the key picture of the US class structure over the twentieth Crea tive Economy trends. century. In l 90 0, th ere were some 10 million pe ople in larger Service Cl as: th e Working Class, compared to 2.9 million in the previous ly providE • The Creative Class.now includes some 38.3 million Creative Class and 4.8 million in the Service Class. Class ex ists main Americans. roughly 30 percent of the entire US The Working Class was thus larger than th e two other fer the Creative Cle workforce. It has grown from roughly 3 mil!ion class es combined. Yet the largest class at that time Creative Class alsc workers in 1900. an increase of more than tenfo ld. was agricultural workers. who composed nearly 40 power. Members e< At the turn of the t\venneth century, th e Crea tive percent of the workforce but whose numbers rapidly or hcr classes. In 19! Class made up JU St lO percent of the workforce, declined to JUSt a very small percentage today. In of the Creative Cl where It hovered until 1950 when it began a slow 1920, the Working Class accounted fo r 40 percent compared to roug ri se; it held steady around 20 percent in the 1970s of the workforce, compared to slightly more than 12 member and $22 .0 an d 1980s. Si nce that rime. thi s new class has percent for the Creative Class and 2 1 percent for the I :;ee these trenc vi rtually exploded. increasmg from less than 20 Service Class. I hove a nice hous million to its current total. reach ing 25 percent of In 19 50 . the cl ass stnJCture remai ned remarkably mostly a fa ntasy kite the working population in 1991 before climbing to similar. The Workmg Class w as st!ll in th e ma1onty, preparing my fooc 30 percent by 19.9.9. with 2.5 million workers. some 40 percent of the work cic:an, bu t [ don ·t c • Ar the heart of the Creative Class is the Super fo rce. compared to I 0 million in the Crea [i ve Class have a gardener ar Creative Core, comprising ! 5 million workers. or 12 ( l 6.5 percent) and 18 million in th e Servi ce Class a raxi) a chauffeur. percent of the workforce. It is made up of people (30 percent). [n relative terms, the Working Cla ss was sc ~v anrs otan Engli who work in science and engineering. computers as la rge as it was rn 1920 and bigger th an it was in fuil·time and they d and mathematics. education, and the arts. desrgn t 900. Though the Crea rive Class had grown slightly lime and distribute· an d c·nt enainrnent. people wh o work in di recrly in percentage terms. the Service Class had grown ·. 1:rvants·· arc !uwiv creative activity. as we have seen. Over th e past consi derably. takrn g up much of th e slack coming from 1'; a 'lt:ry creative :·; u ~ nru ry. this segment rose from less tha n 1 million the steep decline in agri cu lture. a :Kw BMW The · 'TH E CREATIVE C LASS '
· .. , . ,.r· c:>1i!t in the U.S. class siructure k.1s gem: I trusr lier not on ly ro cledn but to rcamrngc • ....,}~ ·t !CL re11 .. ~ · - and sugg,:sr idea o; !or l l.'dccornring: she wkes on the se .' .c 1J• ce ov<;l :L e: p a~t two dt:cacks In l 97 0. th e ''-".' '1 P· r"· .,. ,,,.J1,•d dht\ld ol · t h c 'N o r k·mg. L'I JSS. an d things 1n an elllrqnencuridl manner. Her husband ·•t'C ...., 1d:,~" r-' !.J · - '.- . ·r .... , much id r~ er (rl 6 _versus 32 percenr). dri ves a Porsche. To some degree. th ese members L)f 11J (5 0 L ¥• 3 .. ·· '. ·: · h , l;r"' urn l' in th e Lvent1et h century tha t the the Servi ce Class hJvc' adopted many of the !'unrnons , ;ng l• 't; I,)(. - . - . c L·
J propensny for goal-scttmg Jnd achievem ent. They 1s simply som ething they va lue in all rts mani festations. today hy ih. .' ~ 0- CI want to get ah ead becau se rhey are good at what This is spoken of so often. and so matter-o f-lacLly. that th·-~ p 11Jr::-?d :)1 at es they do. I rake it ro be a ti_m da rnenral marker of Crea r1v e Cl as:; nnd thlh r! wir ch1k Crentivc Class people no longer define themselws values. A s my focus groups and interviews reveal. cumrutcr:;. ~v ! y ( mainly by rh e amount of money they make or rh eir members ot thi s class strongly favor organizations statisricai 1J lrrclati< position m a financially delineated status order ilnd environments in which they fe el rh;it anyone c
to\'.av by rhe so-cal led digital divide - black families in There m e intriguing cha llenges to the kind of lS. diversity that the members of th e Cr·eative Class are 1at the U:iited States tend to be poorer than average. and thus th eir ch ildren are less likely to have access to drawn to . Speaking of a small software company that ;SS al. co mpu ters My own re search shows a negative had the usual assortment of Indian. Chinese . Arabic ns stan -.:tica l correlation between concentrations ofhigh and other employees. an Indian technology profes :in re ch ti rrns in a region and nonwhites as a percentage sional sai d: "That's not diversity! They're all software of th<' population. which is particularly di sturbing in engin eers.·· Yet despite the hol es in the picture. If- light ,Jf my other findings on the positive relationship distinctive value changes are indeed afoot. ns between high-tech and other kinds of diversity - from Jn foreign -born people to gays. lf is 1e 1y =Y rn ie al in 1y iS.
e
d :l e s