Cities ranked by ultra high net worth population and growth

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would be surprised if they showed major HNW growth, especially given that the Brazilian economy is in a depression.

a 50% gain (40,000 to 60,000) in 2016 isn't bad. Don't make the mistake of equating how the economy is doing with how assets are doing. Asset values can anticipate or lag the actual economy. Brazilian assets are predicting better times for the country.

The BM&F BOVESPA (Portuguese pronunciation: [boˈvespɐ]; in full, Bolsa de Valores, Mercadorias & Futuros de São Paulo) is a stock exchange located at São Paulo, Brazil. At the end of 2011 it had a market capitalization of R$2.37 Trillion, making it the 13th largest stock exchange in the world . . . .The benchmark indicator of BM&FBOVESPA is the Índice Bovespa. There were 381 companies traded at Bovespa as of April 30, 2008.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM%26F_Bovespa

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by lio45

As people pointed out already, the households don't need to physically leave London to be dropped from that list -- they don't even need to lose net wealth in GBP to be dropped, since the list is in USD.

The US dollar has been going up against the pound since way before Brexit, I'm pretty sure. So at first sight, it's very possible for most of that drop in London-based wealth to be simply due to the declining pound.

The pound has been falling against the dollar pretty constantly since the 1800s.


Also Chicago's population downtown is not coming from Winettka, it's coming from all over the Midwest as people move here and get rich or even just low six figure incomes. Meanwhile the poor are flooding out of Chicago as who wants to raise their kids in a veritable war zone if they can avoid it by cashing in their section 8 voucher in Des Moines or Green Bay? And another thing, who says development doesn't generate wealth? I know I've made a ton of money off these trends...

[qDot]

The thing about chicago, what sort of people do you think are buying in the ultra luxury towers going up around the park? Or the shorter 1-2 floor per unit midrises in river north?

[10023]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The pound has been falling against the dollar pretty constantly since the 1800s.

False.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Also Chicago's population downtown is not coming from Winettka, it's coming from all over the Midwest as people move here and get rich or even just low six figure incomes. Meanwhile the poor are flooding out of Chicago as who wants to raise their kids in a veritable war zone if they can avoid it by cashing in their section 8 voucher in Des Moines or Green Bay? And another thing, who says development doesn't generate wealth? I know I've made a ton of money off these trends...

True.

[10023]

Originally Posted by qDot

The thing about chicago, what sort of people do you think are buying in the ultra luxury towers going up around the park? Or the shorter 1-2 floor per unit midrises in river north?

It depends on your definition of "ultra luxury". The places that are $5m+ are attracting national and international investment. The ones in the $2-3m range are just professionals in Chicago.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The pound has been falling against the dollar pretty constantly since the 1800s.

Not really. For most of the time the Gold Standard prevailed and the rate was fixed, there were temporary dips from WWI into the Great depression but the previous value was soon reestablished (even if that was not economically sustainable).

The Pound only saw steep and sustained falls between the outbreak of WWII until the early 1980s but since then it has been fairly stable with some periods of overvaluation like 2007 and other periods of undervaluation. The all-time low for the Pound vs the Dollar was in 1985 at £1=$1.05 just before the Plaza Accord.

If you look at the 32 year period since then the Pound is up by 22% over the long term. I guess that might be cherry-picking but hey.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The pound has been falling against the dollar pretty constantly since the 1800s.

Also Chicago's population downtown is not coming from Winettka, it's coming from all over the Midwest as people move here and get rich or even just low six figure incomes. Meanwhile the poor are flooding out of Chicago as who wants to raise their kids in a veritable war zone if they can avoid it by cashing in their section 8 voucher in Des Moines or Green Bay?

Again with the Census fakenews. What is it with Chicago and Census denial?

Chicago is not losing the poor, the population loss cannot be justified by some secret wealth influx, and there's zero evidence that wealthy people are streaming into downtown from Green Bay, Kalamazoo and the like as opposed to Winnetka or Hinsdale.

The reality is that Chicago has the worst city and metro population loss in the U.S., wealth gains are very average, % poverty is stable, and downtown development patterns aren't dissimilar to any other major U.S. metro.

The only outlier is the massive outmigration. Everything else is pretty typical. People buying expensive condos downtown are almost certainly local wealthy people, no different from anywhere else. Professionals, empty nesters from rich burbs and the like.

Yeah, probably a few condos are bought by random millionaires from Peoria, Fort Wayne, but not a big component of downtown demand. Those places aren't exactly exploding with wealth.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

And another thing, who says development doesn't generate wealth? I know I've made a ton of money off these trends...

The Census says so. Chicago isn't building much, and no one claimed that "development doesn't generate wealth" as if it's some unique economic category. Your anecdotes of fabulous downtown real estate wealth-generation are irrelevant.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

It depends on your definition of "ultra luxury". The places that are $5m+ are attracting national and international investment. The ones in the $2-3m range are just professionals in Chicago.

How many $5 million+ apartments do you think sell in downtown Chicago in a calendar year? I would guess not too many. That's a hell of an apartment in most cases.

The n selling to non-locals at >$5m would likely be pretty small.

[qDot]

Originally Posted by 10023

It depends on your definition of "ultra luxury". The places that are $5m+ are attracting national and international investment. The ones in the $2-3m range are just professionals in Chicago.

The insight here would be determined by the buyer profile of these units. Is that available?

[R1070]

Originally Posted by YSL

The Bay Area's population is "mega" to the USA. It's over 8,700,000 now and rapidly climbing, which puts it in the top 5. But the Bay Area is not a metro area. Sure, it's an area, but it's not an official metro area aka MSA.

Metro area figures from the Census bureau are numbers based, not opinion and feelings based. If San Francisco and San Jose were as connected as some say, there would be commuting patterns between them that reflect that.

It's funny how some think the Census Bureau should drop its methodology just for special San Francisco.

If the SF an SJ metros were combined to create one metro (which I think they should be) it would still be smaller in population than the DFW metro area. That whole SF-SJ CSA wouldn't be in the combined MSA because that CSA contains a lot of far flung areas such as Napa Valley, etc. There would still be a CSA there that would include those outer areas, but they wouldn't be in the MSA if SF and SJ were combined.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again with the Census fakenews. What is it with Chicago and Census denial?

Chicago is not losing the poor, the population loss cannot be justified by some secret wealth influx, and there's zero evidence that wealthy people are streaming into downtown from Green Bay, Kalamazoo and the like as opposed to Winnetka or Hinsdale.

The reality is that Chicago has the worst city and metro population loss in the U.S., wealth gains are very average, % poverty is stable, and downtown development patterns aren't dissimilar to any other major U.S. metro.

How do you plan to back up these claims?

Most of the outflow is lower income. And downtown development patterns aren't indeed dissimilar from the rest of the country except for scale. It's more. The central area saw the largest population increase among American cities from 2000-2010, and there is no sign of abatement. This is sunstantial. Your not liking it doesn't make it a lie.

You hereby are not allowed to comment on Chicago until you read this link:

https://www.metroplanning.org/news/8...are-low-income

[the urban politician]

It will upset Crawford to read this excerpt from the above link:

Most of the black population loss witnessed in Cook County is largely due to the loss of young, low-income African Americans from Chicago’s south and west sides, according to MPC’s analysis of the microdata. Overall, there’s little difference between the city’s middle- and upper-income black population in 2010 and 2015. And the black population overall grew during that span in suburban Cook County and the surrounding parts of the region, according to MPC’s analysis.

[ozone]

Another ridiculously gerrymandered statistic/graph that arbitrarily splits San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose-Silicon Valley. It's all the more absurd since they combine NYC and Philadelphia which are some 81 miles and a whole state apart. Whenever this is done I immediately suspect motive or ignorance. The company which produced this statistic is based in NYC (with offices in London and Hong Kong) so it could be both.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How many $5 million+ apartments do you think sell in downtown Chicago in a calendar year? I would guess not too many. That's a hell of an apartment in most cases.

The n selling to non-locals at >$5m would likely be pretty small.

That's sort of my point. Chicago doesn't attract a lot of international money.

The new condos being built in Chicago aren't for the global super rich, just local professionals, even though the exact same units in NY or London would have prices in the high 7-figures (at least) and be exactly that.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by ozone

Another ridiculously gerrymandered statistic/graph that arbitrarily splits San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose-Silicon Valley. It's all the more absurd since they combine NYC and Philadelphia which are some 81 miles and a whole state apart. Whenever this is done I immediately suspect motive or ignorance. The company which produced this statistic is based in NYC (with offices in London and Hong Kong) so it could be both.

Read it again, and read it very slowly. Philadelphia's metro area is ranked #15 on that chart.

Malicious? Gerrymandered statistic? Manhattan itself has more billionaires and multi-millionaires than the entire San Francisco/San Jose Bay Area region, so the notion that 'Wealth X' maliciously bolstered New York by including the lower-market Pennsylvania components of the New York metro area (Leigh Valley, Pike County) to bolster its status is the height of ignorance or stupidity. New York's metro area has well over 120 billionaires, and only about 20 of them live outside of Manhattan. 0 of them live in the PA counties of metro New York.

I've noticed that the aspies from San Francisco and San Jose seem oddly sensitive about population, GDP, wealth, and feel the world is out to get them. The suggestion that people from New York, Hong Kong and London care enough about San Francisco to maliciously handicap the place (by using valid census-driven data) has taken it to another level of pathetic.

If you don't like the way metropolitan areas are computed, take it up with the Census Bureau and maybe they'll set aside their metro area data rules and make an exception for San Francisco when you show them photos of the Google Bus moving workers from the gray areas between metro San Jose to metro San Francisco, and vice versa. If that what it will take for you guys to finally shut the fuck up, I'm all for it.

[Kenmore]

The inferiority complex among a certain subset of the Chicago posters is really embarrassing.

[Centropolis]

this is really something. a lot of weird shrieking and cages rattling around here lately.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

The inferiority complex among a certain subset of the Chicago posters is really embarrassing.

I would say a complex of this sort exists among a certain subset of all cities' forumers; almost certainly a handful of the New York boosters are just as guilty of going out of their way to belittle other cities and reinforce their claim of "we're number one!"

Within that framework many of us are guilty, and threads like this almost always descend into this.

[kool maudit]

Canadians as a whole are just terrible for this.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

I've noticed that the aspies from San Francisco and San Jose seem oddly sensitive about population, GDP, wealth, and feel the world is out to get them.

Undoubtedly a competitive mindset shared by many is probably one of the things that made the Bay Area so obscenely wealthy in the first place.

Good point.

The suggestion that people from New York, Hong Kong and London care enough about San Francisco to maliciously handicap the place (by using valid census-driven data) has taken it to another level of pathetic.

Haha what? No one is disputing census data--I'm disputing their own wealth findings, which is NOT based on census data. Heller?

As far as 'caring', folks in those 3 are definitely far more interested in happenings in the Bay Area than vice versa. That isnt even a question.

Perhaps it's because 3/5 most valuable companies on earth are located here?

World's Top Five Corporations by Market Capitalization July 7, 2017
1 Apple $751.7 Billion
2 Alphabet $650.8 Billion
3 Microsoft $536.3 Billion
4 Amazon.com $467.8 Billion
5 Facebook $438.9 Billion

Or maybe it's because 99.6% of all smartphones run on Bay Area-based platforms? This Londoner seems to like his...


Or maybe it's because so much of the free flow of information on this planet is concentrated in local companies. idk?

Bay Area in blue
10 Most Visited Websites in the UK
July 10, 2017:
1 google.co.uk
2 youtube.com
3 google.com
4 facebook.com
5 bbc.co.uk
6 reddit.com
7 amazon.co.uk
8 wikipedia.org
9 ebay.co.uk
10 twitter.com

10 Most Visited Websites in HK
July 10, 2017
1 google.co.hk
2 youtube.com
3 google.com
4 facebook.com
5 yahoo.com
6 discuss.co.hk
7 wikipedia.org
8 taobao.com
9 baidu.com
10 pixnet.net

Speaking of which, Facebook has just surpassed 2 billion users. That's like nearly a third of all humanity.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/27/tech...ers/index.html

"He who controls information controls the world."-Dr. Steven Franklin

Since u brought up HK, tell me how HK beats that as far as global relevance?

But like I said, I await a response from the authors of the report...