I’m a member of the Net-Generation, people born between 1978 and 1997. At first glance, my cohort seems tailor-made for a decentralized and “flat world,” so we shouldn’t care so much about the place where we work. After all, the internet, like no other technology, has lowered geographical and temporal barriers for communication and collaboration, and N-Geners, like no other generation, are the most comfortable and capable working, learning, and communicating online. Case in point: I recently found myself collaborating on a project with two college pals on Skype (the free online video phone application): one in Palo Alto, California, the other in Alaska, while also chatting and sharing photos with a friend who was in an internet café in rural Vietnam.
However, while technology has lowered barriers and allowed people all over the world to participate in the global economy, it’s a mistake to suggest now that ‘place’ is no longer important for today’s emerging creative workers. Indeed where one works matters now more than ever.
Whether interested in finance, law, politics, computer programming, consulting, or medicine, young friends and colleagues of mine are drawn inexorably to the epicenters and major nodes of their respective fields; in cities, suburbs, and exurbs that also happen to score very high on the creative class index. This is certainly true for my friend in Palo Alto, a city straddling the area between San Francisco and Silicon Valley. He is a talented computer programmer working for an internet start-up. But what about my friends in Vietnam and Alaska, you ask? Did Google just open a server farm in Juno? Is rural Vietnam the new Silicon Valley? Why do your friends want to live there? Truth is they don’t.
My Alaska friend was working for Mark Begich, a Democrat, who defeated the incumbent Senator (and convicted felon) Ted Stevens. If ever there was an appropriate time to say “got out of there like a bat out of hell,” Jeff’s escape from Alaska after the big victory was it. Jeff is passionate about politics, and he is now in Washington, D.C. looking for full time work. Truth is he would rather struggle for a little while in D.C. than be instantly employed anywhere else. After all, every politically engaged young person he and I know wants to be in the U.S. Capitol and, as a result, a burgeoning social scene of smart, creative, and ambitious young people has flourished there. Dave, my friend in Vietnam just graduated from McGill’s School of Management and is wandering Southeast Asia barefooted and bearded trying to ‘find himself,’ but really he’s just on vacation. Like me, he will soon find himself up to his elbows in financial statements and spreadsheets. He is returning to Toronto to work at a boutique private equity group. Jeff was drawn to the epicenter of the political world. Dave, a former business student with an entrepreneurial streak, will return to Toronto- Canada’s financial capital, because he knows the city offers great opportunity for a person with his interests (it also helps that he is a die-hard Leafs fan). In both instances, the where did not merely influence their decisions, it determined them. If anything, their stints in Alaska and Vietnam simply reinforce the notion that the Creative Class, and young people in particular, travel and move throughout the world with increasing ease.
Though not identifying it as the “Net Gen” specifically, Richard Florida presciently foresaw the emergence of a new generation of the “Creative Class” in The Rise of the Creative Class, a theme that has surfaced in ensuing works. His experience interacting with students at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University revealed that young people are drawn to certain hubs, crowding together in thriving and diverse places where like-minded individuals share lifestyles, cultural tastes, and work interests. While the moniker ‘Creative Class’ is not generation-specific, by 2018, when all members of my cohort will be of working age, the Net Generation will, simply put, dominate the creative class. As Boomers retire and Generation Xers fill the ranks of senior management, there will be an overwhelming demand for these young, highly educated people. Attracting them to companies and regions where they can thrive and prosper will be the next great imperative for today’s corporate leaders and politicians.
I encourage everyone to share your thoughts and opinions with me. If a conversation begins, I will be happy to engage in it with you.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
The big change the business world faces from your generation (I am gen X) is not going to come from place - of course you will still want to be surrounded by engaging people - it will be the level of transparency that this generation is comfortable with.
The conventional work place, no matter where you are located, is going to have a really difficult time with Facebook, Skpe, and Twitter. Believe it or not your bosses do not think the outside world should know what you do at work…
December 18th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I think I get it. In a world where technology has allowed us to integrate and collaborate regardless of our physical location, the tricky task for employers will be finding ways to attract young people, who are arguably more interested in hanging out in rural Vietnam or who knows where else, to the hubs for their respective vocations.
I agree.
But we also have to consider the people in unconnected regions — the people who do not have the luxury of being connected to a global network of aspiring young private equity financiers or political activists through a wealth of technological gadgets. There are hundreds of millions of people who were born between 1978 and 1997 who remain unconnected to the internet, who are a part of the “Net Generation” more as a result of their date of birth than of the technologies and personalities that surrounded them as young adults.
Let’s think of some examples of these default “Net Geners” that aren’t connected to the net in the same ways we are as privileged westerners:
What about the genius young student in rural India who is smarter and more ambitious than Dave or Jeff, but who has never had sustained access to the internet? I’m sure that she would love to move to Washington, and would pack up and hit the road overnight in search of a better life if given the opportunity. But, she doesn’t have Facebook so she can’t talk people in the “1 million strong for Barack” group to scope out some job opportunities, she doesn’t have Google so she can’t search and apply for some paid internships online, she doesn’t have Craigslist so she can’t find an apartment, and of course she doesn’t have Orbitz so she can’t book a flight. Not to mention she has no money to do any of the above.
My belief is that motivating these unconnected young individuals, who make up the majority of our cohort on a global basis, to move to physical hubs, is not the difficult part. The difficult part will be expanding our “Network”, which is currently comprised of people who have been financially and situationally fortunate enough to connect themselves, in an effort to connect these underprivileged, but highly motivated and talented individuals, with the goal of truly including them in the Net Generation. If we can accomplish this, not only will corporations, governments and NGOs be able to tap into a huge talent pool that has previously been unconnected to the outside (or inside) world, but we will see a Global Net Generation emerge, rather than the status quo net generation, which is comprised predominantly of westerners and a patchwork of middle-class people from the rest of the world. We will create new competition in the job market that will inspire all Net Geners globally, regardless of their upbringing, to be better and more motivated workers.
Rather than focusing on how to appease the “Creative Class”, I believe corporations/governments/NGOs should, in the short run, be trying to access the inaccessible members of the Net Gen by expanding their recruiting boundaries and relying LESS on technology and regional focuses to attract new workers. In the meantime, tech companies should band together to expedite the learning process for people who have never used technology. It would be a display of CSR that would change the status quo and unlock a hidden world of motivated workers who want to be better than their Western counterparts. Failing this, I fear we are at risk of leaving our underprivileged fellow “Net Geners” behind and rendering their skills, knowledge, and years of hard work obsolete. It’s important that we, as members of the fortunate class, don’t forget about our unfortunate Asian/African/Eastern European/South American counterparts while we pursue our career goals.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Wow. Great posts.
Jason- I agree entirely about your appraisal of our generation as being extremely open about our lives- perhaps too open. But while we may post our interests, our photos, and our ‘relationship status’ I find we are actually very prudent (from my experience, this is not statistical) about any information regarding our work or our employer.
Geoff- You are certainly right that a large portion of my (our?) generation has not grown up with the same opportunities that Dave or Jeff have. However, I am confident in saying that the Net-Generation is probably the closest we have come to a “global generation.” There are more young people online in China than in the United States, for example. I ask you to refer to the recent book “Grown Up Digital” for a more detailed description of these revelatory statistics.
As for “motivating the unconnected,” certainly developed countries, NGOs, and local governments must play a role in engaging young, less connected people all over the world. They hold more untapped potential than all those kids in “developed countries” by virtue of their sheer numbers. However, it is the already well educated and ‘online’ Americans, Indians, Canadians, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Thai, British, Brazilians, etc who are poised to enter and change the workforce almost immediately.
Regardless, very thoughtful comments by both of you.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I think it’s important not to conflate the idea of the Creative Class with the idea of the “Net Generation” as being the emblem of that class. You claim to want to collaborate but speak very aggressively about “dominating” the creative class. Slow down son: http://tinyurl.com/3efsqz
December 18th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Sorry- the previous post was butchered through cut and paste pls read below…
In reference to the original post by Alex, I understand what he means as he explains how we live in a world where “the where determines us.” But for lack of a better expression I ask: What else is new? Young, creative, career motivated people have migrated to urban hubs of high culture, specialized industry, and creativity for decades. New York, L.A., Seattle, San Francisco, Toronto, Montreal, and Washington D.C certainly wouldn’t want you to believe that the only class of creativity to grace their cities emerged from the womb’s of baby boomer’s.
My father grew up during the 60’s in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He saw a more sophisticated life for himself outside of fishing or working at the post office so he went to Dalhousie law school and earned his degree. Shortly thereafter he was off to Toronto, ON. Postcards and rotary telephones were his lines of communication rather than skype, facebook, and twitter. Nonetheless he saw the need to move to a city where his level of “creativity” could be met with the appropriate professional occupation.
I dare to turn the concept of creativity amassing in International hubs around. I think with the tools that our generation has at its disposal it is not our ease of mobility that has changed dramatically, but rather our ease of transferring the creativity formulated in these hubs to the four corners of the world. We have a generation in which a friend who lives in Alaska can communicate daily and instantly with files, music, and videos with a friend in Manhattan. Lets assume this young lady from Alaska went to college with a friend who now lives in Manhattan. She decided to move back to Juno to work at her father’s small business. In this day and age through her on-line experiences with her friend in Manhattan she can hear about the local jazz scene, teleconference in to a pro-Obama meeting, join a blog talking about race inequality in America and the list goes on. One would only have to look at the voting pattern from the recent U.S election to realize that even in traditionally rural red states young voters saw creativity and hope in Barack’s message. Youtube, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, etc… made that election so significant for young people. Would a job on Wall Street be turned down by Annie in Alaska - one would assume not, but maybe she just can’t make it there. I don’t think she would want to be labeled as not part of the creative class, when she may engage in more creative aspects on-line than many of her peers who already live in the hubs of urban sophistication. I like the concept of technology moving outwards rather than inwards thus creating more creativity, compassion, and liberal thought in the most far flung regions of the world.
Concluding with the story of my father. In the 60’s and 70’s he had to move to Toronto to experience creativity and culture in action. He could not connect with the word from his row house in Nova Scotia. Now one would certainly still argue legal and finance jobs are slim way out east, but one can not argue that our generation now has the ability to bring that culture right in to their communities with one click of a mouse.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:34 am
Yawn, nothing new there. Through technology, be it Pony Express, telephone, email, whatever, you only realize that you REALLY have to meet in person - leading to a clustering of people that are high on openness. The only difference is that the extra tech-savvy have a even wider circle of people they might like to know, strengthening the clustering force.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Wow, a country with 3 times the population has more people online? Whoever would have guessed…
As someone who has gone to school in Nova Scotia for 5 years now, I can safely say that it is a dying part of our nation that will need more than than a series of tubes to revive it.
The net generation is a farce. Perhaps a fraction of a percent of the world’s elite will benefit from the technological revolution while the rest of the choking masses will slide further into oblivion as the degree of global inequality increases indefinitely.
I like technology as much as the next guy, but it is something that the vast majority of the world will never experience to the same degree as rich white kids who grew up in Rosedale.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Place = family, solidarity, trust, care, assistance, heritage, roots, identity, hospitality, kinship.
Flat world = narcissism, egotism, vanity, profit-seeking, self-indulgence, self-promotion, greed.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
John, I disagree in the sense that low cost cell phone networks have already made huge inroads into less developed parts of the. They are bringing with them information (from news to market prices) that influences and improves people’s lives. While I do not know Rosedale (is that in Toronto?), i know the dissemination of tech is in fact global, it is still unequal, but improvements are being made globally and are growing.
Rober — please give us more…. what about spiky world? = diversity, innovation, creativity, learning, commerce, opportunity?
thanks Alex and all
December 19th, 2008 at 10:53 am
It is just sad that any intelligent, ambitious person would choose D.C. over something productive, like Silicon Valley.
The worst thing about Obama is that he is so inspiring. He makes people think that government has the answers.
The net generation wasn’t around in the ’70s. It doesn’t know that government is the problem, not the answer. Maybe the farce of “Bailout Nation” will give them a quick education. Maybe Obama’s disappointing cabinet (as conventional center-right and Washington insider as any, and not much different than a McCain cabinet would have looked) will give them some insight into how D.C. really works.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Buzzcut your suggestion of choosing Silicon Valley over D.C is irrelevant. If I’m a politico not a microprocessor engineer why would I choose Silicon Valley over D.C. Secondly how productive was Silicon Valley during the tech bubble. Putting “www.” in front of your co. made you a millionaire. I think a lot of unproductive people attempted to ride that wave.
Now I’m not going to stand here and defend the federal government-favorable bailouts and inefficient bureaucratic machines are problematic. But I will defend Obama. He has produced a cabinet that is pragmatic and bipartisan. Differing political, military, and economic opinions will deliver prudent policies that do not pander to lobbyists or an evangelical ideology but to the well being of America. To Speculate a McCain cabinet isn’t a very convincing argument, but if his VP pick was any indication I feel more comfortable with Obama’s.
I also think net-geners would be offended to think their knowledge of Government was limited to the 80’s and 90’s. History professors would probably feel the same. I’d like to see how well the economy would have faired over the last few months without the government, and how it would do moving forward without proper regulatory oversight.
Lastly to suggest D.C as unproductive is ludicrous. Some of the brightest minds gather within the beltway: World-class think tanks, NGO’s, The World Bank, IMF, The National Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian’s, Global Media Outlets, the list goes on…
December 19th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Yes, Washington D.C. is a very nice city and a productive one at that. But to group The World Bank and IMF with NGOs, The National Gallery, and the Smithsonian is almost blasphemous.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Many academic communities have been collaborating long-distance for decades. No one has counted the research papers that have been written by people who never met each other in person. Email has made it easier, but the process has happened for a long time.
On average long distance academic collaborations have a more flexible timeline than business ones, and may have a smaller budget. While researchers might not have met their partners on a given project, most research academics can find daily face-to-face conversations with professional peers in the same institution. Frequent face-to-face meetings may matter more in the beginning of a career. Lots of excellent academic departments are located in smaller cities and towns.
I think the full potential of long-distance collaboration has yet to be explored. I am hopeful that the long-distance model can give professionals the flexibility to also meet their childrens’ needs. This is important. While you can do a top-notch project long distance, you should not raise a child that way.
December 20th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Long distance collaboration is a way to project and grow a very small business. Having the right long term consultants in target cities is a way to establish an infrastructure that can provide a means to develop and service local clients. Technology makes it work easily.
One thought about the clustering of “net generation” people in certain “spiky cities”: Is a new establishment, composed of people who think alike , being created? A rejection of group think was what the cultural explosion of the 1960s was all about.
December 21st, 2008 at 9:33 pm
So it’s agreed that the Net-Gen will dominate the work force. My question is, what will happen to the corporate cities that are destined to be riddled with Boomer money and CEOs for years past 2020? Living in one of those cities, it has been hard to be seen as anything other than a “kid” in the job market.
December 27th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
@Joe Miller: I was actually going to spend a little bit of time responding to your link, but this response posted at radaronline to the original article covers it quite nicely.
@John: The point isn’t that everything is just all of a sudden going to be hunky dory. The point is that this generation, not really by any purpose but rather by circumstance, does have a new way of approaching life and work. I see it myself, every day, where I’m at as a defence contractor. The point is that we are going to change the way the world works, and we are going to make it better in the process. Is everyone going to get in on it? Of course not. Being hopeful and optimistic does not automatically equate to being a hippy on drugs who thinks that we’re going to make the world perfect. We just want to make it better Draw the distinction.
@Buzzcut: Greg already handled you, so I won’t team up. But you’re all kinds of wrong.
@Zoe B: Email was really only just the beginning. Wikis, brainstorm modeling, and a whole suite of other collaborative software can take you a lot further than email can. Also, live meetings are useful for something things…including getting to know your co-workers. But they are NOT as efficient for collaboration as some of the other tools available. Even if you’re in the same building as some of the people you work with. It’s why myself and one of my younger co-workers are pushing hard to get a wiki to replace our current word document based documentation system at work…because it’s a lot more efficent.
@Wil: I like it. Give me more.
@Jake: The argument that Grown up digital makes is that the boomers will learn from us, and the ones that don’t will fail in business (and, therefore, life
Anyway…fun post.
Thanks all!