First, let me make it clear that Pink's targeted audience is an uneducated majority or a group looking for a quick read. He paints his argument in a black-and-white fashion, ignoring complexities, probably angering more sophisticated readers. In addition, he seems to be writing to a "right-brained" audience to reinforce thinking rather than to create converts. Reason is, his arguments are not supported with factual data, but rather with anecdotes. Although they read well, "left-brainers" will be disappointed if looking for any type of intellectual thesis. Also, if you're shopping at Barnes & Noble, it will be found in "self-help," a section that is less hard science and more motivational. Reading Pink's book in this context will make it more enjoyable, because all in all, it's not a terrible book.

It does make several big blunders.
1) It underestimates the capabilities of our Asian counterparts, reducing them to machines basically, while overestimating our own potential.
2) It encourages individuals to go into design fields, which economically, there is no demand for. Not to say it's not important, it's definitely a value-added function, but either the demand is being met or companies will have to find a way to make it a larger competitive advantage that can translate into $$. Apple has done it, but other companies have not.

On the other hand, it does have good overarching messages (when you read through the crap).
1) Society should focus on value-added activities because yes, a lot of jobs are replaceable through technological means.
2) American liberal arts education provides a very different perspective and way of thinking which can be an asset.
3) Parents (if reading) should encourage creative arts in conjunction with the hard sciences and maths because everyone learns differently, and having a balanced education provides better synthesis.

It's not a bad book... just remember to read it in context of the author's audience. I seriously doubt that Pink is actually as extreme as his book presents him to be.