Richest cities in the world: New York dominates

[JManc]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

That’s my principal problem really, I can’t focus on one group, I blame everyone for my misery. Lol

Well, then carry on good sir!

[10023]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

I sympathize. That’s a small price to pay, actually. I’d throw a bunch of forty somethings in a pit if my political ideals were better served. Ah well, you can’t always get what you want.

If it were up to me, they would have dealt with ventilator and ICU bed shortages last year by just not giving them to people who voted for Brexit.

But you can’t blame the 40-somethings. This was supposed to be the “Boomer Remover” and there are a lot of good reasons to get rid of boomers.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 10023

there are a lot of good reasons to get rid of boomers.

Stamp out Millennials! They are ruining the world.

Let's just perpetuate the ageism of SSP whenever we can.

Every generation since WW II has tried to make life better for their kids than they had it. And every generation has therefore gotten more self-centered and selfish than the one before. 10023 being a perfect example.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by 10023

If it were up to me, they would have dealt with ventilator and ICU bed shortages last year by just not giving them to people who voted for Brexit.

But you can’t blame the 40-somethings. This was supposed to be the “Boomer Remover” and there are a lot of good reasons to get rid of boomers.

Can it be that one of those reasons is you’re waiting impatiently for mum and dad to kick off so you can move out of that tiny apartment in the West End?

[JMKeynes]

Having enormous numbers of hyper-rich people benefits cities substantially. They donate vast money to the arts, which is why New York's museums, operas, ballets, orchestras, concert halls, etc. are vastly superior to those of other cities.

They also donate great parks and monuments (e.g., the new floating "Little Island," the Hudson Yards Vessel, etc.)

Further, they run corporations based in NY, which, in turn, leads to the development of iconic towers. There's a reason why buildings like the Grand Hyatt, the new JPMC HQ, 1 Vandy, etc. are being built in NY and not elsewhere.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Stamp out Millennials! They are ruining the world.

Let's just perpetuate the ageism of SSP whenever we can.

Every generation since WW II has tried to make life better for their kids than they had it. And every generation has therefore gotten more self-centered and selfish than the one before. 10023 being a perfect example.

Boomers most certainly didn't do this. This is what makes them exceptional compared to those before them.

They had public pensions. They destroyed them. They had subsidized cheap higher education. They destroyed that. Generations before them invested in infrastructure. Boomers ended that. Boomers socialized the individual economic loses of the wealthy and told everyone else they're on their own. They've been on a single handed mission in the US to cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the world.

They raised the first generation in the history of America that has less than the generation before it.

They did all this because once the social contract had to include people who didn't look like them, they destroyed it.

But you can let your mum and dad tell you otherwise.

[10023]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Can it be that one of those reasons is you’re waiting impatiently for mum and dad to kick off so you can move out of that tiny apartment in the West End?

Not quite. I had to help both of my parents buy their current homes.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Stamp out Millennials! They are ruining the world.

Let's just perpetuate the ageism of SSP whenever we can.

Every generation since WW II has tried to make life better for their kids than they had it. And every generation has therefore gotten more self-centered and selfish than the one before. 10023 being a perfect example.

This sentence should read “every generation until WW2”, because the baby boomers (and to an extent their parents) didn’t do this. They destroyed cities, polluted the world, ran up enormous public debts in order to live beyond their means, and left Gen X and especially Millennials with the bill.

The only way my generation gets a decent life on the whole is if we cut yours off (fiscally at least) and time is running out.

It would have been very interesting to see Covid inflict plague-like mortality on the elderly. Something like 30-40% of people over 70 or 75 dying in the span of a couple of years would have had a transformative effect via redistribution of real assets without really losing any productivity.

[10023]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Boomers most certainly didn't do this. This is what makes them exceptional compared to those before them.

They had public pensions. They destroyed them. They had subsidized cheap higher education. They destroyed that. Generations before them invested in infrastructure. Boomers ended that. Boomers socialized the individual economic loses of the wealthy and told everyone else they're on their own. They've been on a single handed mission in the US to cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the world.

They raised the first generation in the history of America that has less than the generation before it.

They did all this because once the social contract had to include people who didn't look like them, they destroyed it.

But you can let your mum and dad tell you otherwise.

It’s not his mum and dad, it’s him. Pedestrian is in his 70s.

But good post. Better examples than mine.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Boomers most certainly didn't do this. This is what makes them exceptional compared to those before them.

They had public pensions. They destroyed them. They had subsidized cheap higher education. They destroyed that. Generations before them invested in infrastructure. Boomers ended that. Boomers socialized the individual economic loses of the wealthy and told everyone else they're on their own. They've been on a single handed mission in the US to cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the world.

They raised the first generation in the history of America that has less than the generation before it.

They did all this because once the social contract had to include people who didn't look like them, they destroyed it.

But you can let your mum and dad tell you otherwise.

This is a really good post. Bravo.

Even among my parents and their friends, regardless of politics/ideology, I'm constantly amazed at their worldview. It's really a big deal if their six figure pension, which they've had since they retired in their 50's, is taxed. Climate change, downward mobility, not so much.

They're often retired longer than they worked, with multiple homes, and golf all day, but are absolutely outraged if someone gets unemployment or free lunch for their children. They bought homes when they were cheap, went to college when they were all almost open-admissions and low cost, and worked when benefits were at their peak.

There is absolutely no consideration for the planet's prospects, or their grandchildren's prospects, even as they're nearing the twilight of their lives. They're leaving the world in shambles.

[nito]

Originally Posted by 10023

Asia and Africa will never replace Europe and to say otherwise is Brexiteer nonsense. Geography matters.

London’s principal advantage as a city was being the English-speaking capital of Europe, and it’s no longer in Europe.

I didn’t actually say that Asia and Africa would replace Europe, I said that Asia, the ME and Africa is driving growth. The stark reality is emerging markets offer incredible opportunities due to rapidly changing demographics and economies; their burgeoning middle classes have a demand for mature financial products that has limited supply, whilst corporates and institutions want access to global markets. London isn’t going to be alone in wanting a slice of that, but you are rather misguided in thinking that the conditions for the trade in services is similar to the trade in goods.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, but London isn't in Europe anymore. That's the point. European command centers for finance, logistics, tech, etc. are on the Continent.

All of those assets are dependent on an extensive hinterland, which has vanished. London is no longer integrated with the Continent. The German psychometrics PhD who previously went to work in the City, will now work elsewhere.

London is still in Europe; it just is no longer in the EU. However, lets deal with the facts: EU net migration to the UK has remained positive every year following the referendum, i.e. more EU citizens are moving to the UK than leaving. EU net migration peaked in 2015, fell after the referendum but had begun to stabilise in 2018, for context the latest rate of EU net migration is equivalent to the levels seen in 2010. The German psychometrics PhD individual is most likely still relocating to work in the Square Mile, but less so for the Romanian rhubarb picker or Lithuanian truck driver, which is why there are now more than one million vacancies, the highest on record. Interestingly, just before Covid-19 struck, EU net migration had begun to grow again. I suspect in the post Covid-19 period we’ll see rates of EU net migration not only remain positive but grow further especially in the under-resourced logistics, construction and food sectors.

Of course, the EU is but one part of the migration story of London and the UK, and non-EU net migration has been growing at an unprecedented rate; total net migration to the UK just before Covid-19 was the third highest year on record. Had Covid-19 not materialised, 2020 could have been the biggest year for net migration.

Attempting to theorise whether London will have the diminished statute of Vienna in a century is like questioning whether New York will be habitable due to rising sea levels.

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Having enormous numbers of hyper-rich people benefits cities substantially. They donate vast money to the arts, which is why New York's museums, operas, ballets, orchestras, concert halls, etc. are vastly superior to those of other cities.

They also donate great parks and monuments (e.g., the new floating "Little Island," the Hudson Yards Vessel, etc.)

Further, they run corporations based in NY, which, in turn, leads to the development of iconic towers. There's a reason why buildings like the Grand Hyatt, the new JPMC HQ, 1 Vandy, etc. are being built in NY and not elsewhere.

I can’t tell whether you have posted this without having a sense of humour. I won’t get into a protracted debate about the quantity and/or quality of various cultural institutions and civil amenities, but two points to raise, firstly cities/countries don’t have monopolies on (U)HNWI philanthropy, and secondly (local and national) governments have far broader shoulders when it comes to supporting cultural institutions and civil amenities.

If (U)HNWI’s were so important, why are London’s major museums free, and New York’s not? Why is crime and deprivation worse in New York than in London (3x the murder rate)? Why is London’s transport system more modern, expanding and improving at a greater rate compared to New York’s? Why does London have more open green space than New York? You don’t get the Scandinavians with their far higher quality of living pleading for (U)HNWI’s.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jd3189

I strongly agree with this. I used to be happy seeing these lists but it’s pointless now. So what if a city has more millionaires than another? How does that translate to the cities themselves faring well among everyone who lives in them? If New York has all this wealth and still has high disparity, what the hell am I happy about? A bunch of rich folks who barely pay taxes and can leave the city at will, while the majority of people are struggling to stick around.

I would agree with you if this was another silly list of paper billionaires. But with the cutoff all the way down to $1 million or $5 million net worth, I think it's a meaningful measure of the true wealth of a city. These aren't necessarily the "global elite," these are more the "millionaire next door" types - professionals and small business owners who made it.

[dimondpark]

This thread got me thinking about the IRS data thread that I created months ago, so I decided to revisit that thread and focus on the Top 10 Congressional Districts with the most tax returns reporting $500,000+ income.

3 districts report more than 10% of the individuals included in tax returns be they actual filers or dependents, are in households that earn $500,000+

The Palo Alto area, Manhattan East and Beverly Hills-West LA Area. Manhattan West and Fairfield County are just about at 10% as well.

Congressional District/Number of Tax Returns reporting $500,000+ Income, 2018
5,000+ returns...Total Individuals reported in $500,000+ returns

CA-18.....34,210...101,530..14.65% of all individuals(Palo Alto/Silicon Valley West)

NY-12.....30,140...71,190....10.91% of all individuals(Manhattan East)

NY-10.....26,540...66,100......9.36% of all individuals(Manhattan West)

CA-33.....25,469...67,260.....10.73% of all individuals(Beverly Hills-LA Westside)

CT-04......20,050...63,550......9.51% of all individuals(Greenwich-Fairfield County)

CA-12.....18,530...42,850......6.64% of all individuals(San Francisco City)

NY-03.....16,380...49,450......7.01% of all individuals(Glen Cove-Long Island)

NJ-07.....15,630...50,270......6.52% of all individuals(Hunterdon-Somerset-Morris)

CA-17.....15,010...46,300......6.30% of all individuals(Fremont/Silicon Valley East)

CA-14.....15,000...44,270......6.30% of all individuals(San Francisco Mid Peninsula)

[dimondpark]

Oops double post

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Boomers most certainly didn't do this. This is what makes them exceptional compared to those before them.

They had public pensions. They destroyed them. They had subsidized cheap higher education. They destroyed that. Generations before them invested in infrastructure. Boomers ended that.

That wasn't entirely Boomers. Public pensions were killed off in the 70s and 80s when the political environment was still dominated by voters from the Greatest and Silent Generations (there are still quite a few from the Silent Generation around today). It was actually the Silent Generation that kicked off our current patterns of infrastructure investment. It was also the SG that fled to the suburbs, left cities to rot, and created the current balkanized systems of local governance. Boomers were all babies or not even born when that started, and Boomers were the first to tip-toe back to the city.

[10023]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I would agree with you if this was another silly list of paper billionaires. But with the cutoff all the way down to $1 million or $5 million net worth, I think it's a meaningful measure of the true wealth of a city. These aren't necessarily the "global elite," these are more the "millionaire next door" types - professionals and small business owners who made it.

As I mentioned earlier though, the problem with that low cutoff is accuracy. The data becomes very opaque. Journalists can probably identify all the world’s billionaires, even the ones who live modestly (by billionaire standards). But the random 30- or 40-something dude in black jeans, sipping a latte and working on his MacBook at the local coffee shop might be worth 7 figures and no one would know except him.

[Crawford]

It shouldn't be hard to guestimate HNWI. The vast majority will have annual 1099 forms that detail their investment wealth. And most will have professional advisors.

Unless you're a criminal, or burying your money in your back yard, it's very hard to be HNW with no official record. Hell, it's hard to be a run-of-mill millionaire with no official record.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by nito

I didn’t actually say that Asia and Africa would replace Europe, I said that Asia, the ME and Africa is driving growth. The stark reality is emerging markets offer incredible opportunities due to rapidly changing demographics and economies; their burgeoning middle classes have a demand for mature financial products that has limited supply, whilst corporates and institutions want access to global markets. London isn’t going to be alone in wanting a slice of that, but you are rather misguided in thinking that the conditions for the trade in services is similar to the trade in goods.


London is still in Europe; it just is no longer in the EU. However, lets deal with the facts: EU net migration to the UK has remained positive every year following the referendum, i.e. more EU citizens are moving to the UK than leaving. EU net migration peaked in 2015, fell after the referendum but had begun to stabilise in 2018, for context the latest rate of EU net migration is equivalent to the levels seen in 2010. The German psychometrics PhD individual is most likely still relocating to work in the Square Mile, but less so for the Romanian rhubarb picker or Lithuanian truck driver, which is why there are now more than one million vacancies, the highest on record. Interestingly, just before Covid-19 struck, EU net migration had begun to grow again. I suspect in the post Covid-19 period we’ll see rates of EU net migration not only remain positive but grow further especially in the under-resourced logistics, construction and food sectors.

Of course, the EU is but one part of the migration story of London and the UK, and non-EU net migration has been growing at an unprecedented rate; total net migration to the UK just before Covid-19 was the third highest year on record. Had Covid-19 not materialised, 2020 could have been the biggest year for net migration.

Attempting to theorise whether London will have the diminished statute of Vienna in a century is like questioning whether New York will be habitable due to rising sea levels.

I can’t tell whether you have posted this without having a sense of humour. I won’t get into a protracted debate about the quantity and/or quality of various cultural institutions and civil amenities, but two points to raise, firstly cities/countries don’t have monopolies on (U)HNWI philanthropy, and secondly (local and national) governments have far broader shoulders when it comes to supporting cultural institutions and civil amenities.

If (U)HNWI’s were so important, why are London’s major museums free, and New York’s not? Why is crime and deprivation worse in New York than in London (3x the murder rate)? Why is London’s transport system more modern, expanding and improving at a greater rate compared to New York’s? Why does London have more open green space than New York? You don’t get the Scandinavians with their far higher quality of living pleading for (U)HNWI’s.

I’m sad to say this, but London is a city whose global significance has utterly plunged. Its status as a financial capital has plunged, as has its status as a political capital. It will no longer host significant European political meetings. Paris will.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

If (U)HNWI’s were so important, why are London’s major museums free, and New York’s not? Why is crime and deprivation worse in New York than in London (3x the murder rate)? Why is London’s transport system more modern, expanding and improving at a greater rate compared to New York’s? Why does London have more open green space than New York? You don’t get the Scandinavians with their far higher quality of living pleading for (U)HNWI’s.

The Tube isn't better than the NYC subway. Especially now that a significant amount of it has been reconstructed (that's a surprise treat awaiting you returning tourists post pandemic). NYC's subway is also 24 hours, while London's isn't. The Tube is also way more expensive than the NYC subway.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It shouldn't be hard to guestimate HNWI. The vast majority will have annual 1099 forms that detail their investment wealth. And most will have professional advisors.

Unless you're a criminal, or burying your money in your back yard, it's very hard to be HNW with no official record. Hell, it's hard to be a run-of-mill millionaire with no official record.

Yeah but those 1099s aren’t public record. And I also don’t think everyone with assets in the low 7-figures has a professional advisor. Most do, but lots don’t especially young people.