Talk:Creative class

untitled
This seems to border very closely on an 22.214.103.34|216.214.103.34]] 23:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I've started trying to clean this up and get it to encyclopedia standard; the overall article is a mess, with a lot of POV issues. I'll do what I can, but I will definitely need some assistance. Davidals 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree this article is like an 8th grade research paper.

Wow. Rough shape. Particularly that "downside of the creative class" bit. Florida's theory's kind of in rough shape too, though. I'll be back when I finish reading his book.

Downsides
I'm just going to remove this section - it is very poorly written, and as such, detracts from the whole article. If others feel it belongs, feel free to re-post it, but at least fix it before you do. The issues that this section seems to bring up (though it's difficult to be sure... it's so bad) are already covered anyway.--MonkeyTimeBoy 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Florida's work and many of his concepts are highly problematic. It is worth noting that much of what he says and does is intended to sell his books. That is not a crime, but it does mean that some better analysis and coverage of his critics warrants better attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.221.120 (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a "real" class?
Is the Creative Class truly distinct? The nobility rarely intermarried with the subject class. The upper income class rarely intermarried with the lower income class. I am suggesting that the distinctiveness of a class requires some less than porrous boundaries. Otherwise it remains a nebulous grouping that only exists in the abstract.

Note the inclusion of artists and media in the Creative Class. Is it true that movie directors only marry directors and starletts? Is it true that artists will never marry a construction worker?

Note the inclusion of physicians in the Creative Class. How many couples do we know that combine a briliant male physician and a trophy wife?

Ian Y. Lee (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Issues
I agree with the POV issues. It reads like a pedantic pitch for 'Florida's theory.' Just a little language editing could help clean this article up and make it more descriptive and cleaner sounding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.26.190 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a critism section
this theory is something that is definitely costing governments a ton of money and its results are not proven. Any objections? AnotherObserver (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that a cricism section is needed. There appears to be no appreciation that our physically comfortable way of life has many, many elements that are not related to high degrees of education. Rather, high levels of skill, inventiveness, and execution have given us safe water and produce healthy foods, for example. By the definition of Creative Class, as it stands now, many members of this class are highly dependent on persons of "lesser creativity" who, in many cases, have superior self-maintenance skills, as well as numerous other superiorities which might just have some creative elements to them. This is probably a "non-article" since creativity is not the possession of any particular socio-economic class--but rather Florida's construct.

"Controversy" unexplained
The second sentence of the article, as well as the first sentence after the introductory section, warn the reader that the Creative Class is "controversial", and has "sparked much debate and discussion". But there are no references to anyone debating or discussing the book or concept, nor any description of any controversy it has caused. Who finds this controversial (besides some Wikipedians)? Why? What do they say? This article would be much more useful if it presented a coherent synopsis of Florida's concept of the Creative Class--- without weaseling out of a straightforward presentation of his argument--- and followed that with some description of the problems others have found in his argument, or better yet, some description of how this differs from other theories of contemporary socioeconomic development. To AnotherObserver, I don't see how a criticism section could complain about the theory costing governments money and having results that are not proven (?), because there isn't any discussion of the theory's results or recommendations or spending suggestions. Not having read the book or any other article, I would have no idea what you would be talking about. Msr657 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)