Comments on: The Reset, Alienation, and Work

By: Peter Boumgarden

Peter Boumgarden — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:18:15 +0000

George, I was thinking over this question a bit myself. The general argument seems to be that diversity facilitates diverse social interaction, and consequently more creative outputs. In addition, there will be greater diversity with less homeownership as this allows people to more fluidly move between locations. Stability also may be a cause of decreased diversity, as is the argument of those in social networks and induced homophily- Centola et. al. Imagine a world where 0% of people move. We would expect these people to converge in preferences, tastes, careers, etc over time.

At the same time, for certain types of entrepreneurship, such as community development, motivation comes from commitment to a place. Take St. Louis for example, some of the more interesting development is coming from people who are ‘committed’ to the city as life long residents. It does seem to embody a tension as local entrepreneurship does seem to flow out of both diverse interaction (allowing for building across diverse perspectives) and a commitment to the value of a pursuit. Entrepreneurship comes out of good ideas, and a motivation in seeing something as a ‘good idea.’ Does being a renter make one less likely to see local investment as a good idea? Does it make them more likely to leave a town of less ‘value’… those in need of more development. e.g. a detroit? Will a ‘flow’ of human capital make the good towns better and the bad cities worse? It seems in the example of Detroit that this would be the case, as homeownership is one thing that has prevented a more fluid population drain from the city. If there was less homeownership in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, would Detroit be at a better place… what about those people who left versus stayed?

It would be interesting to see some empirical work on this topic… examining the relationship between homeownership and local investment behavior, however defined.

By: George

George — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:31:28 +0000

to both peter and richard…how do you place the idea of “more fluid in living” along side the theory that buying a permanent place (a house) leads to building a stronger community because the people are more invested in that more permanent location, thus improving schools, small business, etc.?

would you also support a repeal of federal tax deductions for mortgage interest and home-releated property tax since this is sort of the social-engineering aspect?

By: Richard Florida

Richard Florida — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:00:10 +0000

Peter – Thank you. It’s not all that often that someone recognized the social theory roots of my work. It’s like you read through my intellectual history by reading well beneath the surface of that piece.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:28:04 +0000

I love the concept of a city as a social and economic portfolio — the more diversity, the better.

By: Peter Boumgarden

Peter Boumgarden — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:50:49 +0000

Hey Richard
Thanks for the link… I thought it was a great article and look forward to seeing more of your work.
Peter