We talked to a woman who knows how to keep talented people in town. Carol Coletta is head of CEO's for Cities, a company that consults big cities on competing for the best talent. Something she said Memphis must do a better job of if it wants to reverse the brain drain.... "You've got to be able to educate and develop your talent but you also need to be able to retain that talent," said Coletta.
Coletta goes on to say that better place making in the urban core is critical. Once again, fear of brain drain (i.e. outmigration) is used to justify public expenditure. Once again, a civic booster does considerable damage to a region's image.
Coletta is wrong to advocate for better talent retention strategies. Her approach will undermine economic development and harm Memphis. More distressing to me is Coletta's poor grasp of migration and how those flows might improve our cities. Serving up destructive practices is no way to promote urban living.
4 comments:
Jim, you are hopelessly confused about my comments. Do you really want to argue that talent doesn't matter to a city's success? If so, I'll engage that argument any time, any place. It only explains 58% of any city's success, as measured in per capita income. Of course talent flow occurs. Of course, talent migrates. But if you can't keep more talent than you lose, you are in deep trouble. And to date, Memphis is not hanging on either to the talent it develops or the talent it attracts. You really want to argue that?
And I was not arguing for more public expenditure but less. Development and annexation patterns in Memphis over many years have led to a thinning out of population over massive amounts of land resulting in much higher than necessary public costs.
If you still want to disagree, fine. But you ought to get the facts straight before you do it.
Do you really want to argue that talent doesn't matter to a city's success?
I'm not interested in that debate. I'm a fan of increasing a region's educational attainment rate. The controversy is how to best achieve that goal. If you want to argue that talent retention is the way to go, then I'll engage that argument any time, any place.
Advocating for talent retention initiatives is foolish, perhaps even destructive. That's my argument.
So a city develops and attracts talent, but can't retain it... you call that a smart strategy? If you do not find yourself with a net percentage talent gain (talent you develop+talent you attract)-talent you lose, you are a city in decline.
So a city develops and attracts talent, but can't retain it... you call that a smart strategy?
No, I don't call that a smart strategy. I call it a problem. I'm discussing how we solve that problem. Those advocating retention strategies are creating a problem, not solving one.
Post a Comment