Talent May Be Shifting Away From Superstar Cities

[M II A II R II K]

Talent May Be Shifting Away From Superstar Cities


November 18, 2019

By Richard Florida

Read More: https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/11...action/602200/

In recent years, America has increasingly been defined by a winner-take-all geography, with coastal superstar cities like New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., garnering a disproportionate share of high-tech startups, corporate headquarters, and innovation and talent. But surging costs and inequality in these places, elements of what I call the New Urban Crisis may be shaping the beginnings of a shift in talent to other parts of the country.

- That’s the upshot of the newly released 2019 Talent Attraction Scorecard from Emsi, a company that analyzes labor-market data. This edition of the scorecard covers America’s 3,000-plus counties, breaking out the data for three types: big counties (with more than 100,000 people), small and medium-size counties (with between 5,000 and 100,000 residents), and very small, micro-counties (with fewer than 5,000 people). The analysis is based on Emsi’s Talent Attraction Index, which is comprised of six key metrics: job growth, skilled job growth, net migration, annual openings for skilled workers (per capita), educational attainment growth (based on adults with associate degrees and above), and a broad measure of regional competitiveness.

- Among big U.S. counties, eight of the top 10 are not superstar places, including Duval County, encompassing Jacksonville, Florida and Denton County, Texas. Duval County is home to distribution centers for Amazon and Wayfair. Most of the leading big counties are part of larger Sunbelt metros where housing is relatively affordable. The report also notes the solid performance of large counties in the West, in states such as Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Oregon. Some of these counties appear to be benefiting from the movement of talented workers from high-cost cities like San Francisco and Seattle. The same general pattern comes through for smaller and medium-sized counties. Topping this ranking is Cameron County in Louisiana, followed by two counties in Georgia. Three Texas counties appear further down the list.

.....

[jd3189]

Before the debates begin, I just want to say that it’s ultimately great in my book that talent is shifting away from the superstar cities. Talent should be evenly distributed across this country, being as large and decentralized as it is.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Before the debates begin, I just want to say that it’s ultimately great in my book that talent is shifting away from the superstar cities. Talent should be evenly distributed across this country, being as large and decentralized as it is.

There needs to be some centralization for efficiency. Steel sharpens steel - to get the most out of your talent, it needs to have other talent to compete against and, like it or not, people need proximity to get the most out of competition. Distance can be overcome, but only to a certain extent.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by emathias

There needs to be some centralization for efficiency. Steel sharpens steel - to get the most out of your talent, it needs to have other talent to compete against and, like it or not, people need proximity to get the most out of competition. Distance can be overcome, but only to a certain extent.

Does it have to be this way for efficiency? For example, finance has always been centralized in New York and Chicago but there has been cities that also rose with and obtained their own famous institutions like San Francisco, Omaha, Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, etc. Media, whether it is television, movies, etc, is centralized in New York and Los Angeles, but still has visibility in Chicago, Atlanta, Jacksonville ( at one point) and probably a few others I don't know about.


The major centers of course can still be important, but it's beautiful when other cities are able to have sizable piece of the pie too. It would solve congestion problems and give people more options.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Does it have to be this way for efficiency? For example, finance has always been centralized in New York and Chicago but there has been cities that also rose with and obtained their own famous institutions like San Francisco, Omaha, Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, etc. Media, whether it is television, movies, etc, is centralized in New York and Los Angeles, but still has visibility in Chicago, Atlanta, Jacksonville ( at one point) and probably a few others I don't know about.


The major centers of course can still be important, but it's beautiful when other cities are able to have sizable piece of the pie too. It would solve congestion problems and give people more options.

For some of the shiny trophy industries cities and states chase, yes, proximity does matter for efficiency. You will never see a major digital media agency pop up outside of a few usual suspects. This is for two reasons: agencies go where clients are based to maximize face time with key client decision makers, and talent goes to where agencies cluster because it gives them the most opportunities. I can jump from one agency to another, from media to client, from client to media, from media to publisher, etc etc, each time negotiating a raise or better terms. This isn’t possible in smaller metros.

I’m sure we will see a diffusion of back ops talent or development talent who can just use Slack or Teams remotely. But don’t expect to see all that much diffusion with the front end, client-facing roles. This goes for Finance, definitely goes for Life Sciences and biochem, fin-tech, ad-tech, etc.

[Yuri]

I believe we're entering in a new age of centralization, after decades of suburbanization and growing of mid-sized cities. New York's renaissance, London booming, Berlin booming, Tokyo dodging population decline are the most obvious cases.

Massive metropolises which were seen in a very dystopian way in the 1970's and 1980's, even by its own inhabitants, boost now civic pride, better quality of living, good economic prospects and are once again perceived as places to be.

There are some challenges as the high cost of living, the troubles faced by the middle-class in most countries, but I believe soon or later they will be tackled by governments. Also, population stagnation/decline everywhere will put less pressure on real estate prices.

[James Bond Agent 007]

It's about time.

[mrnyc]

^ yeah its weird how both centralization and descentralization are pulling at each other. or just interesting i should say. florida is bringing us good news as you don't need massive groups of people working in industrial settings and big factories anymore, so this also makes sense. however, people in general are still flocking to cities and to the biggest cities, so talent easily and naturally continues to flock there too.

[mhays]

If the topic is sprawl, of COURSE we can do something. Many cities (including several in the US) have significantly slowed sprawl. My city sprawled like hell until we made counties and cities plan and limit outward growth, and accept infill. It's difficult but can be done.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

If the topic is sprawl, of COURSE we can do something. Many cities (including several in the US) have significantly slowed sprawl. My city sprawled like hell until we made counties and cities plan and limit outward growth, and accept infill. It's difficult but can be done.

It helps when everyone is more or less on the same wave link which I'm sure King/Seattle and the surrounding counties are. Here in Houston and Harris county, this concept could fly but the county just north of us, Montgomery, just declared itself a "gun sanctuary" and the two could not be anymore diametrically opposed.

[dubu]

between two big cities on the west coast (portland and sacremento) there are seven small cities. salem, eugene, bend, boise, medford, redding and reno. theres less chance of living in a big city.

[dc_denizen]

we could probably double the urban population by developing all downtown surface parking lots in small to mid size cities. or adding more mid and highrises to underutilized shopping centers / malls

no sprawl required

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

we could probably double the urban population by developing all downtown surface parking lots in small to mid size cities. or adding more mid and highrises to underutilized shopping centers / malls

no sprawl required

Yeah, in a place like Phoenix, with a rigid grid of arterials spaced 1-mile apart throughout the metro, there are over-parked shopping centers on almost every major arterial intersection. You could probably throw up hundreds of those wood construction, 4 stories of apartments over 1 story of parking apartment complexes on shopping center parking lots without having to fully redevelop the shopping centers or massively change the infrastructure. I can think of a couple examples in Phoenix that have done this, and I hope there are more in future. For instance, this old '50s grocery store:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4850.../data=!3m1!1e3

Gets apartments as part of its refresh:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4862...7i16384!8i8192

[IrishIllini]

Doesn’t the baby boom generation end in the early/mid 1960s? Gen X would be the start of a more diverse native population.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Doesn’t the baby boom generation end in the early/mid 1960s? Gen X would be the start of a more diverse native population.

Young adult immigrants in the 1960s would be Baby Boomers.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Young adult immigrants in the 1960s would be Baby Boomers.

True "baby boomers" were born between 1947 and 1964. Anyone who was born here in that time period or arrived here having been born in that time period somewhere else would be a baby boomer.

Someone who was born in 1945 and arrived here in 1968 at the age of 23 would not be a baby boomer, for example. The oldest official baby boomer in 1969 would have only been 22 years old.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by toddguy

True "baby boomers" were born between 1947 and 1964.

i don't know where you came up with 1947.

my parents were both born in '46 and they would consider themselves textbook baby boomers as they were both born within 12 months of their fathers coming home from the war.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Doesn’t the baby boom generation end in the early/mid 1960s? Gen X would be the start of a more diverse native population.

Yes it lasted from 1947-1964.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by toddguy

Yes it lasted from 1947-1964.

1946 - 1964. 1946 was within 9 months of many soldiers returning home from the war.

[Crawford]

I'm still not getting why people are citing global demographic trends to U.S. immigration policy. There's no relationship.

Again, all things equal, the U.S. is the most desirable location for talent. So global demographic trends are irrelevant, unless we get to the point where there are literally no people left. Even if the planet's population were cut in half (which wouldn't happen for centuries), that should not have any impact on the U.S. ability to attract the best and brightest (unless the U.S. were no longer the most desirable destination).

The U.S., more than any other country on earth, can pick and choose its talent. It's only hamstrung by politics.