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.
I usually like Wealth-X and find their data to be very good for a non-govt entity.
But these numbers are small enough that they should name these people like Forbes does.
From a few months ago:
I feel like there are some smaller metros that aren't listed here that would have high billionaire counts. Are the Waltons not living in NW AR these days?
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,196,282 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Not really.
New York's billionaires didnt move there from the other cities.
How can you be sure? NYC is disproportionately at the top of the entire ranking--somebody non-native has to be moving there. It could very well be from other NE cities--when you have that much money, why not have another home in the world's financial capital?
I am curious as to if San Francisco means the Bay area in the listing or just the city proper--really all the cities here, for that matter.
How can you be sure? NYC is disproportionately at the top of the entire ranking--somebody non-native has to be moving there. It could very well be from other NE cities--when you have that much money, why not have another home in the world's financial capital?
Well first off, most rankings only do permanent residences of billionaires and your reasoning that billionaires in other Northeast cities moved to New York and thats why they are underperformers versus CA is what I dont agree with.
I would think most billionares living in NYC choose to live there to be close to their areas of operation as with any city. Even if they have residences elsewhere, their primary residence will more likely than not be convenient to their primary area of business. Plus NYC is the financial capital of the world. It would be unusual for there not to be a disproportionate amount of billionares there.
What's interesting to me is how low the rest of the Northeast fares aside from New York. You'd think as the nation's oldest economies and first centers of wealth and power, there would be more billionaires but clearly CA and TX cities have significantly more than Boston, Philadelphia and DC.
That's because the east coast has the greatest concentration of class. All the new money is elsewhere.
How can you be sure? NYC is disproportionately at the top of the entire ranking--somebody non-native has to be moving there. It could very well be from other NE cities--when you have that much money, why not have another home in the world's financial capital?
Why would you assume such a thing? Maybe the billionaires in the other Northeastern cities are from NYC. That makes as much sense as your supposition (probably more sense given tax differences between jurisdictions).
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.
