(no subject)

[timelets]

Since 2005, five metro areas — Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Jose, Seattle, and San Diego — accounted for 90 percent of all US growth in “innovation sector” jobs, which Brookings defines as employment in the top science, technology, engineering, and math industries that include extensive research and development spending. Meanwhile, 343 metro areas lost a share of these jobs in that same period.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/9/21000162/high-tech-job-growth-concentration-brookings
https://www.brookings.edu/research/growth-centers-how-to-spread-tech-innovation-across-america/

High taxes and government regulations are good for innovation sector growth :)

Comments

[dmm]

> As such, they have increased their share of the nation’s total innovation employment from 17.6% to 22.8%. In contrast, the bottom 90% of metro areas (343 of them) lost share.

It sounds to me that they are talking about a zero-sum game: a share of total innovation of the nation, which is 100% by definition.

And then Vox/recode being unable to retell this story well, so it is morphing to something else (to something like dynamics of the absolute number of innovation-related jobs per area; but what Brookings is saying does not seem to be about that).

[timelets]

The original Brookings report talks about the share of innovation employment and the winner-takes-most pattern of it. By definition, "share" implies a portion of a total, usually, expressed in %. The Vox story is almost irrelevant. I referenced it because I saw it first and it had a link to the original Brookings study.