Here’s my interview with BusinessWeek’s Michelle Conlin:

Richard Florida: The U.S. Is Facing a ‘Talent Shift’

The bestselling author worries about the consequences of so many American-educated MBAs starting their careers in Asia

Richard Florida, the author of the bestselling books The Rise of the Creative Class and The Flight of the Creative Class, is a preeminent thinker about human capital and its importance for business. His new book, The Great Reset, due out in April, argues that a true recovery will require a complete break from the consumption lifestyle and a move towards a new economic model that is actually sustainable.

Florida is the director of the Martin Prosperity Institute and a professor of business and creativity at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. Bloomberg BusinessWeek talked with Florida about how many American-educated MBAs are no longer beginning the Grand Tour of their careers in the U.S.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek: Some of the best and brightest American-educated kids are seeing their future—in Asia. Does this worry you?

Richard Florida: From the beginning, I’ve been worried about this talent shift. Two things are happening. Countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are going after our best and brightest. In China and India, the best and the brightest are staying. One of the biggest tools foreign companies have is our business schools. All these great companies are coming to recruit. This shift is happening in real time right in front of our eyes. I see it in the Rotman School where I teach.

What are you seeing there?

I did the commencement address this year. I was blown away. In enormous numbers, the students were going to China, to India, to the Middle East. To a person, they said they found much more opportunity and possibility for career advancement over there. My jaw dropped. I literally could not believe how many kids.

The trend looks pervasive to you. Yet there’s radio silence from policymakers.

People in Washington are brain dead about this.

How to save Detroit, how to stimulate the mortgage industry. This flight of talent out of this country is actually a much more fundamental problem than anything talked about in Washington. Keeping top talent here as well as attracting top talent to our shores is a fundamental economic advantage. I don’t think most people want to admit what’s happening. They don’t want to see it.

Why the denial?

I think we in the U.S. have taken this for granted for so long. When I see the figures that 50% of all patented innovation in the U.S. comes from foreign-born inventors, I think that the important core of American ingenuity is not American ingenuity. It’s the ability to attract the world’s best people. That’s part of what made Hollywood great—European directors.

How do you see this playing out?

I don’t think any one country will dominate us. But if China picks up its share of global talent, and then India, and then Australia—you add up those percentages, and they create an enormous structural disadvantage for us. It erodes our competitive advantage. The U.S. always used to benefit from these big crises. In the 1870s, we got a lot of immigrant skills. In the 1930s, a lot of Europeans poured in. Now look what’s happening. I mean, imagine Silicon Valley without Andy Grove.

Here’s one hot off the press.

A new paper with Jason Rentfrow and Charlotta Mellander looks at the role of post-industrial structures – that is, the creative class and human capital as well as values toward openness and tolerance – on the happiness of  nations.  Our main hypothesis is that  these structures and values shape happiness in ways that go beyond the previously examined effects of income. Here’s more from the abstract:

Drawing from previous theory and research, we measured post-industrial structures in terms of higher-level education and the share of the workforce engaged in knowledge-based/creative work. Post-industrial values were measured in terms of acceptance of racial and ethnic minorities and of gays and lesbians. Our measure of happiness is derived from a large-scale global survey of life satisfaction conducted by the Gallup Organization. We controlled for income in our analyses and divided our sample into high- and low-income countries to explore whether income has different effects on countries at different stages of economic development.

Our results indicate that post-industrial structures and values have a stronger effect on happiness in higher-income countries where the standard of living has surpassed a certain level. Income, on the other hand, has a stronger impact on happiness in low-income countries. Thus, we propose that when income rises beyond a certain level, a new system of post-industrial values centered on education, creativity, and openness become better predictors of happiness than income.

The full paper is here.

Just finished a new paper in what’s become an interesting – and fun – new area for me. Our research examines the factors that are associated with smoking and obesity – two significant health problems and contributors to leading causes of death.

There’s been a lot of research on smoking and obesity among individuals and some which looks at geographic patterns. Still, what we find is interesting. There is considerable variation in smoking and obesity across states. And smoking and obesity are both closely associated with post-industrial socioeconomis structures, that is high levels of knowledge; professional, creative work; and high levels of college-educated adults. The results holds even when we control for the level of economic output.

What this all seems to mean is that places that have transitioned to postindustrialism go beyond economics and innovation. In addition to generating better-paying jobs and having higher levels of income and innovation, these sorts of places appear to have better health outcomes as well, and they do so in ways that go beyond the effects of just higher levels of economic output. The effects of these structures work in addition to the effects of Gross State Product per capita. The full paper is here.

Americans following the Olympics at home have been almost as pumped as their athletes are about their record haul of medals. “I have looked (at the medal count),” Viktoria Rebensburg told USA Today, after picking up a gold medal in the women’s giant slalom, “But I didn’t expect I could give a medal to this thing. I never thought that would happen, so it’s cool. And maybe we will win this.”

The United States hasn’t dominated a Winter Olympics since 1932. With 32 medals earned thus far, statistics guru Nate Silver predicts the U.S. will end the games with 34, ahead of Germany with 30, my adopted home-base of Canada with 26, and Norway with 23.

But wait a minute. The USA is a much bigger country than any of these. With 300 million-plus people it’s nearly four times the size of Germany, 10 times bigger than Canada, and 60-plus times bigger than Norway.

So with the help of my statistically minded colleagues at the University of Toronto’s Martin Prosperity Institute, I decided to take a different kind of look. We rated and ranked medal performance by the size of each country’s population. We’ve dubbed this new ranking system the Winter Olympic Medals Per Capita Metric, WMPC for short, where we rank medals per one million people.

Now the results get interesting.

The U.S. ends up in 19th place, with roughly one medal per one million people, less than Australia and about the same as Poland. Germany ends up 14th and Canada ranks 10th with five times the take as the USA. The top finisher is tiny Norway with four-plus medals per one million of its people.

If Silver’s projections hold, the U.S. will end up in 21st place by the end of the games. Norway will top the list with five medals per one million people, followed by Austria in a distant second place with 1.9. Slovenia will come in third with 1.4, then Switzerland (1.3), Sweden (1.1), Latvia (1), Finland (.9), and Canada (.8).

What happens when we track medals historically, going back to 1924? The United States comes in 14th, with slightly less than 0.8 medals per one million people. Norway is far and away the dominant Winter Games force, taking home a whopping 62 medals per one million people. Scandinavia, the Nordic countries, and the European alpine nations are also powerhouses, with Finland earning 29, Austria 23, Switzerland 16, and Sweden 13. Estonia and the Netherlands produce about five medals per one million. Canada produces four – still five times the American rate and eighth overall. (Excluded from our analysis are the Soviet Union and several other former Eastern bloc nations that were initially bigger countries that have subsequently broken into smaller parts.)

Looked at this way, the USA seems a lot less dominant than it first appears.

It’s been hard to justify high-speed rail (HSR) projects in terms of conventional cost-benefit analysis. But, it may be time to rethink – and broaden  - the way we think of the benefits of HSR. HSR’s benefits are usually thought of in terms of lowering transport costs by reducing problems like gridlock, pollution, and travel time. But the real benefit of HSR may turn on its ability to expand economic growth, according to a new analysis by my colleagues at the Martin Prosperity Institute.

There are three main mechanisms through which high-speed rail can help expand the economy, according to the MPI study. First, HSR expands the labor pool available to firms, bringing talented workers from nearby centers within commuting distance and thus expanding the quantity and quality of available employees. Second, HSR makes more jobs available to workers without making them have to relocate and move to a new home. Third, HSR extends the benefits of other expensive, productivity-enhancing infrastructure such as airports across broad regions. International airports, major research universities, and reference libraries are all more financially viable and internationally competitive when they serve a larger population. High-speed rail allows them to build the scale they need to achieve world-class excellence and also spreads their high costs across a wider population.

The MPI report is here.

Earlier this week, I discussed the new Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index of happy cities. Today, with the help of my Martin Prosperity Institute colleague Charlotta Mellander, we take a look at some of the social, demographic, and economic factors that are associated with the happiness and well-being of cities.

There has been considerable debate on the factors that are associated with happiness and well-being at the national level. The well-known Easterlin Paradox suggested that happiness tends to level off after a certain income threshold. Psychologists, notably Edward Diener, have argued that factors such as health, challenging work, and close social relationships, among others, play a considerable role in happiness. Some have even made the case for instituting a new measure of gross national happiness to supplement conventional metrics like gross national product.

Recent studies by Princeton University’s Angus Deaton and Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School question the Easterlin Paradox and indicate a closer link between happiness and income across nations. Carol Graham raises the enigma of the “happy peasant and the miserable millionaire” as a way to resolve this apparent paradox. Graham suggests that happiness is relative to one’s position in society. Take unemployment for example. Unemployment is crushing for previously employed people in places where gainful employment is the norm. But people in poor countries where unemployment is more the norm find other ways to be happy.

The Gallup-Healthways is the first comprehensive data set we know of that tracks happiness and well-being at the metropolitan level, providing data from a large-scale survey of individuals across 185 metro regions. We look at the associations between the Gallup-Healthways Metro happiness index and key social, demographic, and economic factors. Data-matching reduces the size of our sample to 170 metros – roughly half of all U.S. regions. As usual, we point out that our analysis points only to associations between variables. It does not specify causation or the causal direction of those associations which are questions for future research. Still, the results are interesting across several dimensions.

Income, Wages, and Output: So what is the relationship between metro-level happiness and income, wages, and output? The correlation analysis suggests a moderate relation between wages (.45), income (.4), and economic output per capita. The scatter-graphs below show the relationships are reasonably linear, though there is a better fit for wages and income than for output per capita.

Unemployment: Conventional wisdom and academic studies suggest that a rising unemployment rate would take a big toll on happiness. We find a moderate effect across U.S. metros. The correlation between happiness and the unemployment rate is -.34 and between it and the year-over-year (December 2008 to December 2009) change in unemployment is -.3.

Post-Industrial Economic Structures: In ongoing research, we have been testing the notion that happiness and well-being may be more associated with key features of so-called post-industrial economic structures – namely the shift from physically oriented work to knowledge, professional, and creative occupations and industries – and from lower-skilled to more highly skilled and educated workforces. A large body of research has found a close association between human capital (measured as share of the population with a B.A. and above) and economic development across nations as well as regions; other research has found that human capital levels are becoming more divergent across regions over time. To get at this, we looked at the associations between happiness and human capital, as well as between it and creative-knowledge-professional occupations and blue-collar working class occupations.

Human Capital: Happiness at the city or metro-level is more closely associated with human capital with a correlation of .68 – the strongest correlation of any of the variables we looked at. The scatter-graph below shows a fairly linear relationship.

Creative Class: Happiness is also associated with the creative class, a correlation of .45. The scatter-graph below shows a fairly linear relationship.

High-Tech: Happiness is also associated with locations that have higher concentrations of high-tech industries. We find a correlation of .41 between it and the Milken Institute’s Tech-Pole measure.

Working Class: On the other hand, metro-level happiness is negatively associated with the working class, -.34, a finding which is similar to that for states.

Silicon Valley is America’s happiest big metro-region and Washington, D.C. is second, according to a new survey of America’s 52 largest metro regions by the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index.

The Gallup-Healthways data breaks down well-being into six main categories. Greater D.C. leads in life evaluation. The Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul lead in two categories – emotional health and basic access. Silicon Valley takes first place in two categories as well – physical health and healthy behavior.

That said, Boulder tops the list of small- and medium-size city-regions – and posts the highest happiness index score of any metro. Holland, Michigan; Honolulu, Hawaii; Provo, Utah; and Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara, California also post higher scores than any of the larger regions.

The most unhappy metros are mainly housing-dependent Sunbelt cities of sand and Rustbelt locations that have been hard-hit by the Great Reset. Las Vegas has the dubious distinction of being America’s unhappiest large metro.

The Winter Olympics’ host city of Vancouver tops the new list of the world’s most “liveable” cities by the Economist Intelligence Unit.  Toronto comes in fourth. Canadian and Australian cities do well. Not a single U.S. city makes the top 10. More here.

Here’s a map of job creation from The Gallup Organization. It’s based on approximately 100,000 Gallup Daily tracking interviews conducted throughout 2009 with employed adults in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. It provides a clear picture of the evolving economic geography of The Great Reset.

On the losing side of job creation, Rustbelt states, especially Michigan and less so Minnesota, continue to be hard hit, along with the “housing-crash” states of Nevada, California, and Arizona. Northeastern states -  Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire – also fare poorly. In the west, Oregon and Idaho also see low rates of job creation.

The best-performing states in terms of job creation are energy economies – North Dakota, Louisiana, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, Alaska, and New Mexico, as well as Nebraska; and those with economies that benefit from federal spending, Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. More here.

Here’s a cool map based on over 210 million Facebook profiles (h/t: Jason Rentfrow). Compiled by Pete Warden, it plots the connections between places that share Facebook friends. The map divides the U.S. into seven distinct locational clusters with names like “Stayathomia,”  “Mormonia,” and “Socalistan.” More here.