Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The number of Billionaires has really exploded in the past years. I remember in the 80's billionaires were extremely rare. You didn't have many in the World period. But most of this is due to lessening value of the American dollar. A billion dollars is not nearly as much as it used to be. In fact, you could buy as much with 250 million in the early 80's as you can with a billion today.
The number of Billionaires has really exploded in the past years. I remember in the 80's billionaires were extremely rare. You didn't have many in the World period. But most of this is due to lessening value of the American dollar. A billion dollars is not nearly as much as it used to be. In fact, you could buy as much with 250 million in the early 80's as you can with a billion today.
At least the US economy didn't go the way of Zimbabwe in terms of hyperinflation. If that were the case, we'd ALL be billionaires! People would have interviews on TV asking "How did you become a billionaire so quickly?" to which the reply is "Well, I was watching TV and looked through the couch and found some change....."
Interesting to compare 2010 to 2000:
Forbes.com: Forbes 400 Richest in America (http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=54&passYear=2000&passList Type=Person&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=25&resul tsSortProperties=-numberfield2%2C%2Bstringfield1&resultsSortCategory Name=worth - broken link)
In 2000, the lowest cutoff to be on the Forbes 400 was $725 million
In 2010, the lowest cutoff to be on the Forbes 400 was $1 billion
The consumer price index in 2000 was 172.2
The consumer price index in 2010 is 218.3 (source: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt (broken link))
Using that metric, the value of the 400 richest Americans has collectively gone up by 6.8% ($1 billion in today's value could have bought $774 million back in 2000). While that may kind of be good, this is actually one of the lowest decade increases the US has had in a long time....
California in 2000 had 107 residents on the Forbes 400
California in 2010 had 84 residents on the Forbes 400 *A resounding "OUCH!" is in order!
New York State in 2000 had 47 residents on the Forbes 400
New York State in 2010 had 65 residents on the Forbes 400
Texas in 2000 had 34 residents on the Forbes 400
Texas in 2010 had 45 residents on the Forbes 400
Looks like the reason California lost out big in the 2000s is due to:
1) Tech bubble burst
2) Real estate market EXPLOSION!
Not a good decade at all for my home state. I hope we haven't hit the floor yet. To think, if the rich got hit that hard, imagine the average CA resident? Oh well, nothing left to do but learn from it and get back on track, eh?
Optimistic part for any ambitious kid is lots of F400 (BTW a notoriously inaccurate list) are self-made guys, unlike any other country in world
Really splits based upon industries...where tech has many of youngest guys, followed by finance
Suspect nearly all of SF's billionaires live/work in PaloAlto/Woodside/Atherton area, followed by SF's PacHts, to be proximate to their SiliconValley offices....elite regions w/a total population of maybe 100K people (vs SF region's ~6MM people)
NYC region's billionaires nearly all reside on Manhattan's UES and UWS nr CentPk and Midtown offices, an area w/maybe 250K population, vs ~18MM in entire region
LA region looks rather lame given its ~18MM population yet so few billionaires (and many/most are near-death age), despite flash and show of Westside
On per capita basis, interesting how concentrated is world's wealth, IQ and innovation around the leafy suburban PaloAlto area, a car-centric area with no skyline, no classic downtown or epicenter, no nightlife, yet where future Apples, googles and facebooks are most likely to emerge in coming yrs, perhaps from future Stanford Engineering alums, as opposed to places w/Luddite economies, "traditional" cities and/or lib arts colleges
Optimistic part for any ambitious kid is lots of F400 (BTW a notoriously inaccurate list) are self-made guys, unlike any other country in world
Really splits based upon industries...where tech has many of youngest guys, followed by finance
Suspect nearly all of SF's billionaires live/work in PaloAlto/Woodside/Atherton area, followed by SF's PacHts, to be proximate to their SiliconValley offices....elite regions w/a total population of maybe 100K people (vs SF region's ~6MM people)
NYC region's billionaires nearly all reside on Manhattan's UES and UWS nr CentPk and Midtown offices, an area w/maybe 250K population, vs ~18MM in entire region
LA region looks rather lame given its ~18MM population yet so few billionaires (and many/most are near-death age), despite flash and show of Westside
On per capita basis, interesting how concentrated is world's wealth, IQ and innovation around the leafy suburban PaloAlto area, a car-centric area with no skyline, no classic downtown or epicenter, no nightlife, yet where future Apples, googles and facebooks are most likely to emerge in coming yrs, perhaps from future Stanford Engineering alums, as opposed to places w/Luddite economies, "traditional" cities and/or lib arts colleges
Yet the % of the nation's richest are shrinking in California. In 2000 California had 26% of the top 400, now only 21%. The list tells us that NYC metro is growing and California is declining. With outsourcing of the tech empire to Asia, I wouldn't be surprised to see California continue to shrink on this list in the future.
Yet the % of the nation's richest are shrinking in California. In 2000 California had 26% of the top 400, now only 21%. The list tells us that NYC metro is growing and California is declining. With outsourcing of the tech empire to Asia, I wouldn't be surprised to see California continue to shrink on this list in the future.
But for all that outsourcing, none of the wealth is actually being generated overseas. When's the last time something like a Google, Facebook, or YouTube was thought up in Asia? All the grunt work is done there, but none of the innovation is. It's akin to an American manufacturing magnate opening up a plant in the 3rd world; while it MAY be good that the plant opened in the 3rd world since it will increase technological know-how, it doesn't exactly make the locals rich.
Overall though, this past decade was probably the worst in terms of economic downturns for California since the 1930s. As much as it sucks now, boom and bust periods aren't exactly new to California. That's the nature of how the economy is...very Darwinian. Trends don't last forever.
Chicago suburbs in Illinois- 7 and all of them are on the North Shore
Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 09-25-2010 at 01:26 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People would have interviews on TV asking "How did you become a billionaire so quickly?" to which the reply is "Well, I was watching TV and looked through the couch and found some change....."
