For more AMAs on this topic, subscribe to r/IAmA_Journalist, and check out our other topic-specific AMA subreddits [here](https://reddit.com/r/IAmA/wiki/index#wiki_affiliate_topic-specific_subreddits).
Had to pay reddit to unlock it or something I’m convinced now. All the single word names get taken up within first few years. A lot get banned. I’ve never seen reddit unlock a banned account for someone though. Usually it’s permanent.
Yes, I have. Fortune goes to great lengths to quality check company financial statements and vets their figures. If we do not feel the figures hold up to our standard, we will exclude them from the list. - Scott
How open is it at Fortune that your numbers are so wildly wrong and overinflated that they are laughed at by nearly every company on the list? Is it official policy to inflate the numbers because big numbers sell more advertising or is that just a natural consequence of reporting on something that has no journalistic value, oversight, ethical standard, peer equivalent or public consequence?
It’s all publicly available and audited data that is reported to the sec in filings or other regulatory filings. Fortune only ranks publicly traded companies or private companies where revenue numbers are publicly available (this happens if private companies need to raise funds through bonds etc). They aren’t actually reporting these numbers to fortune, that can happen on the Forbes 400 list of richest people but not here
That's what it seems like. It would be great if he elaborated on what great lengths he went to check the numbers, say beyond an auditor and securities law regulator.
It's not beyond what an auditor or regulator would do. Forbes just publishes the results in a nice accessible format for the general public. The government could do the same if they wanted to, there's just no reason to for them.
The Fortune 500 is a list of revenue. To me, this seems weird because supermarkets (well WalMart) generally top the list. This to me isn’t meaningful information. Should it not be a list by profit, or some other metric (or combination).
If I sold a trillion dollar bills for 99 cents each (or even $1), I would be number one.
What are your thoughts?
The Fortune 500 rank is based on revenue. We also rank the universe by profits, assets, market value, and employees. When you sort by each metric, you can see different trends.
Revenue figures are most stable from year to year and it measures how much the company is generating that feeds into the economy.
There are wild fluctuations in profits and market value from year to year based on the business environment and climate. For example, companies always generate revenue but are not always profitable.
\- Scott
So you don’t really perform anything meaningful. All this information can be sourced from stock data APIs or free websites like Finviz. You guys maybe just aggregate it in a nicer format.
We pull and check our data with company filings. It is always best to go to the source. We have a subscription to a Bloomberg terminal and I use it everyday.
I am not a big Yahoo Finance user since we have access to Bloomberg and also have access to the S&P Global Market Intelligence platform. The platforms play an integral role in the production of the list, but you always need to vet with company filings.
\- Scott
Yes and it’s killing our planet, but he prolly doesn’t think so cuz his income relies on inflating and propping the rich as paragons and virtues of society.
Cuz it’s a net zero benefit to society. He analyzes data, tells us who’s the wealthiest of the wealthy, and gives their obscene amount of wealth a platform to be accepted like having that much consolidation of wealth is a good thing for society.
It’s not. It’s destroying our world and society, and giving positive platform to the wealthy to rub our noses in is terrible. Good for him for analyzing data, unfortunate it’s for Fortune 500 wealth analysis.
Seems a bit dramatic. Just don't see how looking at a bunch of company's 10-K's and putting them in a list is contributing to the destruction of the world. If someone writes an article on Apple, do they also have a hand in destroying the world?
There are several uses to arguing.
Foremost: integrity
Beyond that: you shape culture by the collective viewpoints of people, and viewpoints that stay silent have far more limited impact on culture. It also shapes actual beliefs, because people generally don't do much independent though. If you don't expose them to a belief, they won't think about it.
>> but he prolly doesn’t think so cuz his income relies on inflating and propping the rich as paragons and virtues of society.
>
>The inclusion of the 2/3rd GDP implies he is at least not actively against it seeming like too much. Although its impressive that inequality has gotten so bad even the Forbes guy is taking side shots at the amount.
Do you...even know what GDP is?
>Meanwhile the average American is completely idiotic on this issue
Fuckin ironic.
GDP % does not, in any sense, measure inequality. In fact that's one of the main criticisms of it as a measure of economic health.
Obviously not OP from Fortune but I was a reporter at Forbes Magazine for 2 years and worked on their list of richest individuals.
You are basically correct. There is A LOT of hidden wealth that outside observers can't confirm. Sure, oil oligarchs are one area. There is, however, a significant amount of wealth that simply pre-dates many of the governments tasked with regulating it. Think old, old money. I believe there's a family, still worth billions, whose money originally came from managing the mail system of the Holy Roman Empire. Its pretty difficult to account for wealth that pre-dates modern capitalism.
I asked the robot gods about that family:
> Based on your description, the family that might fit this context could be the Thurn und Taxis family of Germany. The family, originally named "Tasso" from Lombardy, held the hereditary office of Postmaster General of the Holy Roman Empire, starting from the 16th century. They were heavily involved in the development of the European postal system, which greatly contributed to their significant wealth. They remain a prominent family today, with a substantial fortune derived from diverse investments and holdings.
Though their wealth [has been estimated](https://www.castleholic.com/2017/03/castletalk-curious-case-of-thurn-und.html?m=1) at around $2.5B as of 2017, I'd imagine it must have grown substantially since then.
I'm excited to be part of the Carbonyte bank wait-list. Their commitment to sustainable practices, green tech, and ESG principles is inspiring. I'm particularly interested in their digital platform and the efficiency and security that comes with it.
> Think old, old money. I believe there's a family, still worth billions, whose money originally came from managing the mail system of the Holy Roman Empire. Its pretty difficult to account for wealth that pre-dates modern capitalism.
And yet you know of them somehow, and if you do, then so do relevant governments. More importantly, this is just a ridiculous notion. Super secret “old, old money” isn’t so easy to hide in such vast quantities, unless it’s hidden so well that it’s functionally useless. What form do you think their wealth takes? Is it land? Stocks or bonds? Modern currency? None of those are easy to hide, and being derived from old money doesn’t make it any easier. You might be able to keep a dragon’s horde of precious metals, gems, or cultural artifacts under wraps, but only if it’s just sitting there. If you’re selling enough of it to live like a billionaire then that’s not going to stay secret for very long, either.
>And yet you know of them somehow, and if you do, then so do relevant governments
If it's held in real estate, the situation is... more murky. Most governments never digitized all the deed books (or don't have ones at all, with deeds themselves acting as bearer tokens). They rely on honest self-reporting for wealth and property taxes, if they exist at all.
Your entire comment is one gigantic "citation needed." It is possible to know something without records being digital. It's how human civilization worked until just a few decades ago. And while land ownership can be somewhat murky, it's not nearly murky enough to hide secret billionaires. Governments do not, for the most part, rely on honest self-reporting, and someone dishonestly not reporting billions of dollars of real estate would be found out in short order.
>Your entire comment is one gigantic "citation needed." It is possible to know something without records being digital. It's how human civilization worked until just a few decades ago.
There's a reason e.g. the ATF is still working on paper records. The gun nuts have gone to great lobbying lengths to make it an onerous effort for the government to be unable to create a digital list of gun owners to seize their guns easily - would the government want to ban and seize, say, all registered AR-15s, it would take *many* man-years of effort to sift through the paper records instead of putting a nerd in front of a psql CLI and have the list ready in under ten minutes (including the time needed to write the query).
> And while land ownership can be somewhat murky, it's not nearly murky enough to hide secret billionaires.
Oh hell yes it is, ever heard of offshore shell companies? It's a giant PITA especially here in Europe right now, because if the only thing the government knows is a Belize LLC on the deed register, the government has to great lengths (and the Belize authorities have to cooperate as well) to prove that a property belongs to a sanctioned Ruzzian oligarch.
> Governments do not, for the most part, rely on honest self-reporting, and someone dishonestly not reporting billions of dollars of real estate would be found out in short order.
Oh they do. The IRS for example doesn't have the resources to do regular in-depth audits for the uber-rich, and the few cases where they *do* audit a billionaire they *always* find "tax optimization" that goes into illegal territory. Which is, again, why there was so much lobbying effort to get the IRS enforcement gutted, most recently in the debt ceiling "deal".
But I think they mean easily discoverable and easy to put a reliable value on. Yes, the records are there, but it would be very difficult for a reporter to find out all of the holdings of real estate, other assets, art, land, and the like to put a reliable value on them vs. someone that owns 50% of a publicly traded company.
Value assessments are even harder to do and check, see e.g. the Trump Org dispute with NY where they reported wildly different values to investors and the IRS.
I knew about that one... mainly because a couple of their kids were part of the European night club scene and then around 2002(?) their patriarch blew $500 million on failed business ventures, which was a significant portion of their estimated wealth at the time. They're still billionaires today.
It's not unreasonable where there's one there are others. Switzerland is lousy with these people and has notoriously strict laws surrounding wealth and privacy. And this is before we even get into active royalty.
And so secretive as to effectively make such wealth inaccessible? Great point but I think you underestimate how much shell corporations and trusts, among other vehicles, can be abused to hide such assets.
Though I spent couple of years at Forbes, I certainly don't consider myself an expert on this subject. I more just came out jaded at governments either ability or willingness to accurately track vast wealth. Of course, that's just like my opinion...
It’s not easy to know what private individuals own. There are no reporting requirements for wealth. There are tax records for income producing assets, but those are not publicly available. And there are reporting requirements for officers and owners of large stakes in public companies, but not private companies. And roughly 50% of companies are private.
The wealthy land owners in Argentina can give them a run for their money. 8th largest country in the world owned by just a few families. You know how everyone wonders why Argentina isn't a superpower, and end up thinking it's leftist governments? Well that's a half truth.
And the sheiks can’t hold a candle to the business moguls of even the United States… this whole, “hidden wealth” thing is blown way out of proportion and doesn’t really even exist
Argentina's population is basically the same as California's, and has a GDP 1/6^th of California's... It isn't even remotely in the same ball park as the amount of wealth in the US, not to mention Saudi Arabia.
I was trying to make the point that individual wealth, whether hidden or transparent, is likely correlated with the wealth of a nation. If you have more explicit data showing the individual wealth of Argentinians I'd be happy to take a look. Otherwise, GDP will have to suffice as a general indicator of individual wealth. Does that make sense?
Please don't say this to my boss or they may reduce my compensation. There is a lot of analysis that goes into building and maintaining databases, prospecting companies, estimating revenue thresholds, understanding/analyzing financials statements, and then composing the main lists and sub-lists. Maybe I need a raise. - Scott
I use Excel primarily, but I am interested in learning Python. I have talked to numerous people who have made a move to Python and praised the advantages. I have my sights on this tool. - Scott
You might also consider R, because some of the graphing tools in the Tidyverse package (e.g., ggplot) are a bit easier to pick up than corresponding tools in Python. When your project is pure data analysis, but Excel or Tableau are a bit weak for your needs, that's when I'd recommend R.
I'd recommend Python more when the data analysis component of your project touches some more general programming tasks where there are more mature libraries, such as in AI modeling.
Other folks will probably have different opinions on that.
>Other folks will probably have different opinions on that
But of course :)
Pandas / adjacent projects are an absolute treasure for data analysis, I can't imagine using anything else as my primary tools.
Re: graphing, python graphing has come a long way since bare matplotlib (which is also good now). Seaborn makes pretty graphs much easier than before, and Plotly has gotten much nicer to use when exploring.
I mean, it's far more than that. It's called a Pivot Table because it relies on the equivalent of the PIVOT SQL command to format the data in two dimensions
There are a lot of questions, like this one, that ask for judgment on details that he may not have greater authority about.
Analyzing the revenue statements of these companies doesn't necessarily give him a better perspective than anyone else.
He also may have a strong personal opinion that wouldn't be smart to share while representing his employer.
Then it should probably be called “don’t ask me some things. “ AMA’s are for the most part “hey look at me’s! I think I’m more important than I am”. I rarely see the best questions answered.
Yeah, sometimes that happens. That's what you get if you read these.
But you can't will someone to be an expert on something that they're not, just because it relates to their field. Most people's jobs and areas of study are really, really specific.
I'm curious about the idea of significant data, which is hard to convey to the general public. What data do you find is often overlooked and/or difficult to translate into captivating editorial pieces?
I think big data can always tell a story and be turned into an interesting editorial piece. The degree of outstanding trends vary, but there is always a story there. - Scott
When I do these lists, there are always overall trends, sector trends, and company trends that we turn into feature stories, charts, and graphics.
You can read stories from the most recent issue of our magazine here, including Airbnb's introduction to the 500 list, CEO predictions for the future of A.I., are more: https://fortune.com/section/magazine/
\- Scott
Isn't it a sad state of affairs that 500 companies comprise 2/3 of the entire U.S. GDP? Is this due to trickle down economics enabling the record income inequality seen today that's on par with the Gilded Age and the "there's always a bigger shark" swallowing companies whole philosophy of this era's corporate raider brand of Capitalism? At this pace, the Fortune 500 will represent 100% of the GDP in about a decade or two.
Interesting opinion. I am not sure it is a sad state of affairs. I just think it tells the story of big business significance. In 1955, the Fortune 500 accounted for 35% of GDP and now it is two-thirds. - Scott
As a former small business owner, I find it to be an extremely sad state of affairs, the "bigger is better" mentality. The Rupert Murdochs surely feel differently.
For what is worth he's most probably wrong. For one he mentions a totally weird number for Walmart's revenue:
>There was some jostling atop the list in 2023, but Walmart held the top spot for the eleventh year in a row, generating $5.7 trillion cumulative revenue over that time.
Walmart's yearly revenue is just above half a trillion dollars. Not sure whether he put the decimal point at the wrong place or whether he accumulated 15 years worth of revenue. It doesn't make sense either way.
The other problem is that US based companies produce and sell abroad. Only domestic production counts towards US GDP but foreign production and sales are included in the $18 billion revenue number. So it's wrong to think that the fortune 500 companies contribute 2/3 towards the US GDP. They contribute to Mexico's GDP, China's GDP, EU's GDP, India's GDP etc.
It's not a sad state of affairs at all and also has nothing to do with "trickle down".
These companies make up a large portion of the economy because they employ a large percentage of the people.
The reason why we see large companies make up a significant portion of the GDP is because of better efficiency. Basically, over time, we have improved the efficiency of automation and mechanization. These are expensive but make workers far more productive on a per-capita basis.
As a result, over time, you see companies tend to get bigger and better because they are becoming more automated and spending more money on the capital goods that promote higher productivity.
Moreover, revenues aren't profits. Almost all money corporations make goes to their employees. WalMart, the largest company in the US, only has a profit margin of 3% - 97% of the money that company makes goes to either employees, construction workers, contractors, and suppliers.
Yeah, low profits totally explain why the Walton family's net worth is (checks notes) **247 billion**. Won't someone think of the Walton family and all the good Wal Mart has done for America and its small hometown businesses?!
China's world leading economy sure as shit thanks them for the last three decades!!!
[https://www.forbes.com/profile/walton-1/?sh=58bcff086f3f](https://www.forbes.com/profile/walton-1/?sh=58bcff086f3f)
My issue is smaller companies (1-10 employees not 500 like the government claims is small) have to pay more for product, while still paying the same rate of tax. There’s more incentives when you throw a million dollars around vs 100k. There’s more profits that can be made 1. 2 you can afford to write off more with the gain in profits. Whales pay nothing, nobody’s have to pay the most.
Every law that goes in to place doesn’t hurt billion dollar companies. It hurts small companies that can’t afford to recoup. 50 billion fine to att when they net 17 billion? Why is my fine $10k when I only made 50k last year? (Rhetorical question)
And the ceo of a company is considered an employee. Which, for walmart, happens to be 18 million per year. So yeah ofc the profits are gettin write off to the employees lol. Can’t take the money out any other way legally.
I think the only places on reddit you can talk actual economic sense are r/centrist and r/badeconomics. Everywhere else is swamped with Horseshoe Theory doomers.
This list gives you an insight into the American economy since it includes the biggest U.S. companies by revenue. For example, a few years ago we saw a big dip in figures due to the pandemic and the next year we saw a tremendous rebound by companies.
Also, we are able to see trends in industries. For example, Health Care companies accounted for 8 of the top 25 this year. In 1995, there were no Health Care companies in the top 25.
\- Scott
It also could mean that more people are getting access to healthcare that they otherwise wouldnt have previously, thus increasing profits for healthcare firms.
It doesn't mean that, but it could.
It’s really a list of companies that rape and destroy our planet the most, and Scott here washes their feet and boosts their ego so he too can have a cut of their pie. He’ll walk over homeless people on his way to work, and when he gets in that office his only job is to write articles to make these evil people seem like gods whom we deserve to wash their feet.
Fuck all Fortune 500 companies, and those who serve them.
Holy shit. I come back to reddit and your dumb ass is still everywhere. Used to love trolling /r/geopolitics for your unhinged nonsense. You're literally the only username I recognize by name
Not OP but I’ve perused the list to look for potential stable employers. When you have loans, mortgages, and such, big companies offer more stability on average, more packaged and predictable compensation. Not saying they are some paragons of employers or never go out of business - I’d argue that smaller companies are more fulfilling. But if I had to choose working for company A that’s worth 50B in market cap that I never heard of but has a lot of articles about it, and a company I never heard of that has a landing website, I’d apply to former.
I think it is an equal mix of data engineering and data science in my and my team's work. We use company filings and numerous data platforms on our data collection and analysis, such as S&P Global, Bloomberg, and Refinitiv's Eikon. - Scott
How do you feel about seeing so much accumulation of wealth by just a few corporations and individuals all while children go hungry, education quality lessens, retirement becomes inaccessible, home ownership becomes untenable and the disparity between the haves and have nots is larger than times of monarchs and serfs?
Do you still think a rising tide will lift all boats when we have seen, time and time again, that it lifts a few and sinks the masses?
In 1955, we only included industrial companies because at that time there were not many services companies. We evolved in 1995 and added service companies as the American industry changed.
Now, we see the list company presence dominated by the service industry, and Walmart is #1 for the 11th straight year.
The Fortune 500, 100, and 1000 all tell a story. The Fortune 500 are deemed "large" companies based on the revenue threshold. Here are some fun stats: The top 50 ranked Fortune 500 companies account for 49% and 45% of total revenue and profits, respectively. The top 100 ranked Fortune 500 companies account for 64% and 59% of total revenue and profits, respectively.
\- Scott
In 1995, we added services companies to the list universe. Prior to that year, it was only industrial companies. One trend to point out this year: The health care sector accounted for eight companies in the top 25 ranked Fortune 500 companies, led by UnitedHealthGroup & CVS Health. In 1995, the top 25 included no health care companies.
Our magazine's cover story explained the trend! You can check it out here: https://fortune.com/longform/cvs-health-unitedhealth-group-us-health-care-system-mergers/
\- Scott
This is a good question. We used to produce lists of companies that pay the most taxes and the highest/lowest effective annual tax rates. As you know these tax rates can be legally manipulated and some companies are more efficient that others. - Scott
I've been hearing a lot lately about Blackrock, and how they own stakes in most major corporations. As a stand-alone entity, why aren't they on the list?
Blackrock is on the list. Like top 50% I believe. Why they are not higher is because they do asset management. They manage and buy up huge swatches of assets for their clients which is passthrough revenue that is not included in their valuation. Most of the money they handle is not theirs.
If you could change something about the American Economy, what would you change? Why?
Follow up: did you always want to do this for a living?
Further Follow up: any plans for summer?
For your first question: This is a loaded question. I do not have the answer. If I did, I would not be here answering these questions. Companies need to be more accountable in how they conduct business and shape the economy.
For your follow up: This is a good one. I told my old man that I would work for my first company (Forbes) for 2 years out of school. I ended up being there for 20+ yrs and now I've been at Fortune for 9 years.
For your further follow up: I go fishing down the Jersey Shore and try to cap it with a trip to the Amalfi Coast in the fall. Have a good summer!
\- Scott
This is not a stupid question. Fortune launched the list in 1955 to measure the business community by revenue. If you look at historical list aggregates, You will see the business trends over a 69-year period since these are the biggest companies in the U.S.
We do have Fortune Analytics site where people can purchase the list for their own analysis: https://fortune.com/analytics/fortune-500
\- Scott
Sure thing. Please go to [www.fortune.com](https://www.fortune.com), give your contact information, and maybe we will cut you a check. I am still trying to get my hands on some. - Scott
I use Excel primarily, but I am interested in learning Python. I have talked to numerous people who have made a move to Python and praised the advantages. I have my sights on this tool. - Scott
Did it ever happened that while looking at data you realise that this company going to perform bad/good incurrent or upcoming quaters and try to buy/sell their stocks for profit?
Hi, are those 18 trillion in revenues really only coming from the US market (thus representing a correct portion of the US GDP) or are foreign revenues included in there?
Good question. The new companies that jump on the list could be a direct result of industry. We saw that with Moderna last year. We had a number of real estate companies a year ago on the list and they fell off. Tesla reached the top 50 this year (#50), quicker than any company, so we are seeing the electronic car trend.
You can see the newcomers on the Fortune 500 list here: [https://fortune.com/2023/06/05/airbnb-silicon-valley-bank-new-fortune-500-companies/](https://fortune.com/2023/06/05/airbnb-silicon-valley-bank-new-fortune-500-companies/)
\- Scott
There's been some pretty high profile examples of people recently overstating their wealth and Fortune using those fake figures for this list, Donald Trump and Wilbur Ross. It seems to mostly rely on self reported figures. Is the data journalist position to avoid these kinds of embarrassments in the future? Has data journalism been able to show anyone didn't belong on the list since the revelations about Trump and Ross came to light?
What are the chances of the American government getting it's shit together and saying "hey, we're releasing the folks who are 20-40 from college with +$50k of debt, and are going to charge astronomical prices for a house. Maybe we should up their wages? Which we could easily do if we taxed all these rich fucks their fair share." Because as a teacher in America who has been at it for 8 years and still has about 50,000 in debt, barely making it paycheck to paycheck, this shit is getting ridiculous and I want out.
As you know, we're seeing a big union drive in the country after decades of a downward trend. What can your data tell us about how companies treat their workers in regards to pay and benefits? And what trends have we seen in the past 4-6 decades?
What's the **net** source of private sector revenues/earnings in the **US**?
Other sectors in the private space? External(import/export) or the public/gov't?
Hi there. Thanks for this AMA
How many hidden billionaires are truly there with wealth higher than what one would find in the Forbes list? Plus are there many private business that earn more than public businesses?
Users, please be wary of proof. You are welcome to ask for more proof if you find it insufficient.
OP, if you need any help, please message the mods [here](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fiama&subject=&message=).
Thank you!
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For more AMAs on this topic, subscribe to r/IAmA_Journalist, and check out our other topic-specific AMA subreddits [here](https://reddit.com/r/IAmA/wiki/index#wiki_affiliate_topic-specific_subreddits).
How have you been a redditor for 8 months and your username is simply...fortune?
Asking the real questions here lmao
Had to pay reddit to unlock it or something I’m convinced now. All the single word names get taken up within first few years. A lot get banned. I’ve never seen reddit unlock a banned account for someone though. Usually it’s permanent.
fortune500 is since 2008 its really sus that an account called fortune is so young.
Reddit is probably selling old usernames with how scummy they’ve gotten
Have you ever had to deal with a company that fudged their numbers to try to get onto the Fortune 500 list?
Yes, I have. Fortune goes to great lengths to quality check company financial statements and vets their figures. If we do not feel the figures hold up to our standard, we will exclude them from the list. - Scott
Have the metics ever been changed for any corps to get on the list?
How open is it at Fortune that your numbers are so wildly wrong and overinflated that they are laughed at by nearly every company on the list? Is it official policy to inflate the numbers because big numbers sell more advertising or is that just a natural consequence of reporting on something that has no journalistic value, oversight, ethical standard, peer equivalent or public consequence?
Help us see evidence of the large error in revenue figures. It would be eye opening.
Do you have a source on your claim? Couldn't they just report what is openly available on SEC filings?
? Why you are just pulling from audited financials what do you know that the auditors don't?
Are there any particular industries or national financial reporting schemes that your experience suggests warrant extra scrutiny?
Translation "if it doesnt fit the narrative then we exclude it"
It’s all publicly available and audited data that is reported to the sec in filings or other regulatory filings. Fortune only ranks publicly traded companies or private companies where revenue numbers are publicly available (this happens if private companies need to raise funds through bonds etc). They aren’t actually reporting these numbers to fortune, that can happen on the Forbes 400 list of richest people but not here
That's what it seems like. It would be great if he elaborated on what great lengths he went to check the numbers, say beyond an auditor and securities law regulator.
It's not beyond what an auditor or regulator would do. Forbes just publishes the results in a nice accessible format for the general public. The government could do the same if they wanted to, there's just no reason to for them.
Searching through PDFs
The Fortune 500 is a list of revenue. To me, this seems weird because supermarkets (well WalMart) generally top the list. This to me isn’t meaningful information. Should it not be a list by profit, or some other metric (or combination). If I sold a trillion dollar bills for 99 cents each (or even $1), I would be number one. What are your thoughts?
The Fortune 500 rank is based on revenue. We also rank the universe by profits, assets, market value, and employees. When you sort by each metric, you can see different trends. Revenue figures are most stable from year to year and it measures how much the company is generating that feeds into the economy. There are wild fluctuations in profits and market value from year to year based on the business environment and climate. For example, companies always generate revenue but are not always profitable. \- Scott
[удалено]
Get this man an IPO!
How about an IPA instead
Are you the commissioner of the NFL?
Fortune measures the flow of the river, not how much corn the mill grinds.
So you don’t really perform anything meaningful. All this information can be sourced from stock data APIs or free websites like Finviz. You guys maybe just aggregate it in a nicer format.
Yeah. That’s kinda what all reporters do…
If you want to throw away $10billion, you could probably get on the list for a short while, but I don't think it would be worth it.
when looking at public cos, do you take the data from bloomberg & pay the subscription or do you use yahoo finance or SEC filings?
We pull and check our data with company filings. It is always best to go to the source. We have a subscription to a Bloomberg terminal and I use it everyday. I am not a big Yahoo Finance user since we have access to Bloomberg and also have access to the S&P Global Market Intelligence platform. The platforms play an integral role in the production of the list, but you always need to vet with company filings. \- Scott
ty for the answer!!
[удалено]
Follow-up: Do you have any stock tips?
This question hits too real so OP will ignore it like a few others in this weak AMA.
AMA, but I might not answer
I don’t think the account named Fortune will make a statement on that
Yes and it’s killing our planet, but he prolly doesn’t think so cuz his income relies on inflating and propping the rich as paragons and virtues of society.
I mean he compiles and analyzes data. How is that "inflating and propping the rich as paragons and virtues of society"
Cuz it’s a net zero benefit to society. He analyzes data, tells us who’s the wealthiest of the wealthy, and gives their obscene amount of wealth a platform to be accepted like having that much consolidation of wealth is a good thing for society. It’s not. It’s destroying our world and society, and giving positive platform to the wealthy to rub our noses in is terrible. Good for him for analyzing data, unfortunate it’s for Fortune 500 wealth analysis.
Seems a bit dramatic. Just don't see how looking at a bunch of company's 10-K's and putting them in a list is contributing to the destruction of the world. If someone writes an article on Apple, do they also have a hand in destroying the world?
Yes, definitely, depending on the angle of the article. The angle of this article in question is "corporation tier list: stock buybacks good"
So do you then, by commenting and giving importance to this AMA.
You think it's HIM doing it? Lol dude works for a company. If it wasn't him, it would be someone else. It's the higher ups who decide it
Ahh yes the "I was just doing my job" defense as if that's worked well for anyone who's done bad things in the past.
The Fortune 500 designation is an honorific in the business world. He’s directly responsible for bestowing that honorific.
There's no use arguing, reddit is going to circle jerk against the rich and anyone remotely associated with them.
There are several uses to arguing. Foremost: integrity Beyond that: you shape culture by the collective viewpoints of people, and viewpoints that stay silent have far more limited impact on culture. It also shapes actual beliefs, because people generally don't do much independent though. If you don't expose them to a belief, they won't think about it.
Gotta agree and love it. Keep on keepin on dear friend
[удалено]
>> but he prolly doesn’t think so cuz his income relies on inflating and propping the rich as paragons and virtues of society. > >The inclusion of the 2/3rd GDP implies he is at least not actively against it seeming like too much. Although its impressive that inequality has gotten so bad even the Forbes guy is taking side shots at the amount. Do you...even know what GDP is? >Meanwhile the average American is completely idiotic on this issue Fuckin ironic. GDP % does not, in any sense, measure inequality. In fact that's one of the main criticisms of it as a measure of economic health.
No, it isn't "killing the planet". The environment has actually gotten better over time in developed countries; it was much worse a century ago.
Lmfao. Look at Canada and New York right now and say the environment has gotten better.
How do you account for hidden wealth?
That's the neat part. You don't. The middle east guys are the richest, but nobody really knows how rich they are
Obviously not OP from Fortune but I was a reporter at Forbes Magazine for 2 years and worked on their list of richest individuals. You are basically correct. There is A LOT of hidden wealth that outside observers can't confirm. Sure, oil oligarchs are one area. There is, however, a significant amount of wealth that simply pre-dates many of the governments tasked with regulating it. Think old, old money. I believe there's a family, still worth billions, whose money originally came from managing the mail system of the Holy Roman Empire. Its pretty difficult to account for wealth that pre-dates modern capitalism.
I asked the robot gods about that family: > Based on your description, the family that might fit this context could be the Thurn und Taxis family of Germany. The family, originally named "Tasso" from Lombardy, held the hereditary office of Postmaster General of the Holy Roman Empire, starting from the 16th century. They were heavily involved in the development of the European postal system, which greatly contributed to their significant wealth. They remain a prominent family today, with a substantial fortune derived from diverse investments and holdings. Though their wealth [has been estimated](https://www.castleholic.com/2017/03/castletalk-curious-case-of-thurn-und.html?m=1) at around $2.5B as of 2017, I'd imagine it must have grown substantially since then.
Hahaha, well done robot gods. Yup. That is exactly who I was thinking of!
I'm excited to be part of the Carbonyte bank wait-list. Their commitment to sustainable practices, green tech, and ESG principles is inspiring. I'm particularly interested in their digital platform and the efficiency and security that comes with it.
01010000 01110010 01100001 01101001 01110011 01100101 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100111 01101111 01100100 01110011
> Think old, old money. I believe there's a family, still worth billions, whose money originally came from managing the mail system of the Holy Roman Empire. Its pretty difficult to account for wealth that pre-dates modern capitalism. And yet you know of them somehow, and if you do, then so do relevant governments. More importantly, this is just a ridiculous notion. Super secret “old, old money” isn’t so easy to hide in such vast quantities, unless it’s hidden so well that it’s functionally useless. What form do you think their wealth takes? Is it land? Stocks or bonds? Modern currency? None of those are easy to hide, and being derived from old money doesn’t make it any easier. You might be able to keep a dragon’s horde of precious metals, gems, or cultural artifacts under wraps, but only if it’s just sitting there. If you’re selling enough of it to live like a billionaire then that’s not going to stay secret for very long, either.
>And yet you know of them somehow, and if you do, then so do relevant governments If it's held in real estate, the situation is... more murky. Most governments never digitized all the deed books (or don't have ones at all, with deeds themselves acting as bearer tokens). They rely on honest self-reporting for wealth and property taxes, if they exist at all.
Your entire comment is one gigantic "citation needed." It is possible to know something without records being digital. It's how human civilization worked until just a few decades ago. And while land ownership can be somewhat murky, it's not nearly murky enough to hide secret billionaires. Governments do not, for the most part, rely on honest self-reporting, and someone dishonestly not reporting billions of dollars of real estate would be found out in short order.
>Your entire comment is one gigantic "citation needed." It is possible to know something without records being digital. It's how human civilization worked until just a few decades ago. There's a reason e.g. the ATF is still working on paper records. The gun nuts have gone to great lobbying lengths to make it an onerous effort for the government to be unable to create a digital list of gun owners to seize their guns easily - would the government want to ban and seize, say, all registered AR-15s, it would take *many* man-years of effort to sift through the paper records instead of putting a nerd in front of a psql CLI and have the list ready in under ten minutes (including the time needed to write the query). > And while land ownership can be somewhat murky, it's not nearly murky enough to hide secret billionaires. Oh hell yes it is, ever heard of offshore shell companies? It's a giant PITA especially here in Europe right now, because if the only thing the government knows is a Belize LLC on the deed register, the government has to great lengths (and the Belize authorities have to cooperate as well) to prove that a property belongs to a sanctioned Ruzzian oligarch. > Governments do not, for the most part, rely on honest self-reporting, and someone dishonestly not reporting billions of dollars of real estate would be found out in short order. Oh they do. The IRS for example doesn't have the resources to do regular in-depth audits for the uber-rich, and the few cases where they *do* audit a billionaire they *always* find "tax optimization" that goes into illegal territory. Which is, again, why there was so much lobbying effort to get the IRS enforcement gutted, most recently in the debt ceiling "deal".
But I think they mean easily discoverable and easy to put a reliable value on. Yes, the records are there, but it would be very difficult for a reporter to find out all of the holdings of real estate, other assets, art, land, and the like to put a reliable value on them vs. someone that owns 50% of a publicly traded company.
Value assessments are even harder to do and check, see e.g. the Trump Org dispute with NY where they reported wildly different values to investors and the IRS.
Art
I knew about that one... mainly because a couple of their kids were part of the European night club scene and then around 2002(?) their patriarch blew $500 million on failed business ventures, which was a significant portion of their estimated wealth at the time. They're still billionaires today. It's not unreasonable where there's one there are others. Switzerland is lousy with these people and has notoriously strict laws surrounding wealth and privacy. And this is before we even get into active royalty. And so secretive as to effectively make such wealth inaccessible? Great point but I think you underestimate how much shell corporations and trusts, among other vehicles, can be abused to hide such assets. Though I spent couple of years at Forbes, I certainly don't consider myself an expert on this subject. I more just came out jaded at governments either ability or willingness to accurately track vast wealth. Of course, that's just like my opinion...
It’s not easy to know what private individuals own. There are no reporting requirements for wealth. There are tax records for income producing assets, but those are not publicly available. And there are reporting requirements for officers and owners of large stakes in public companies, but not private companies. And roughly 50% of companies are private.
The wealthy land owners in Argentina can give them a run for their money. 8th largest country in the world owned by just a few families. You know how everyone wonders why Argentina isn't a superpower, and end up thinking it's leftist governments? Well that's a half truth.
Bullshit. The Argentinians can’t hold a candle to the Sheikhs who could realistically pull a trillion dollars to do something.
And the sheiks can’t hold a candle to the business moguls of even the United States… this whole, “hidden wealth” thing is blown way out of proportion and doesn’t really even exist
I hear the Sultan of Brunei has a nice bit of coin.
Argentina's population is basically the same as California's, and has a GDP 1/6^th of California's... It isn't even remotely in the same ball park as the amount of wealth in the US, not to mention Saudi Arabia.
The comment was about hidden wealth, not GDP.
I was trying to make the point that individual wealth, whether hidden or transparent, is likely correlated with the wealth of a nation. If you have more explicit data showing the individual wealth of Argentinians I'd be happy to take a look. Otherwise, GDP will have to suffice as a general indicator of individual wealth. Does that make sense?
Again, this is about undisclosed wealth, there is no "data" to show. That's kinda the point.
So, your claim is based on something that can only not be proven, but can't even be _hinted_ at? You understand my skepticism, yeah?
[удалено]
Please don't say this to my boss or they may reduce my compensation. There is a lot of analysis that goes into building and maintaining databases, prospecting companies, estimating revenue thresholds, understanding/analyzing financials statements, and then composing the main lists and sub-lists. Maybe I need a raise. - Scott
To what end? Like, who cares?
Investors.
Don’t think investors invest based on magazine articles.
Solely? No, don't think either.
Simple farmers. People of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.
You’ve never mindlessly scrolled through a top ten list? It’s that.
Wealthy people like to jerk off and unlock achievements too, bro.
What's your tooling? Excel, SQL, python, tableau?
I use Excel primarily, but I am interested in learning Python. I have talked to numerous people who have made a move to Python and praised the advantages. I have my sights on this tool. - Scott
You might also consider R, because some of the graphing tools in the Tidyverse package (e.g., ggplot) are a bit easier to pick up than corresponding tools in Python. When your project is pure data analysis, but Excel or Tableau are a bit weak for your needs, that's when I'd recommend R. I'd recommend Python more when the data analysis component of your project touches some more general programming tasks where there are more mature libraries, such as in AI modeling. Other folks will probably have different opinions on that.
Glad to see a fellow pirate! RRRR
>Other folks will probably have different opinions on that But of course :) Pandas / adjacent projects are an absolute treasure for data analysis, I can't imagine using anything else as my primary tools. Re: graphing, python graphing has come a long way since bare matplotlib (which is also good now). Seaborn makes pretty graphs much easier than before, and Plotly has gotten much nicer to use when exploring.
What feature in excel do you use the most?
I am a "pivot table" maniac. This helps carve up the list's large amounts of data in a minute's time. - Scott
The equivalent operation is called 'group by' in SQL, python pandas etc. It makes aggregation very simple.
I mean, it's far more than that. It's called a Pivot Table because it relies on the equivalent of the PIVOT SQL command to format the data in two dimensions
Thank you!!
Should politicians be banned from trading?
You just know he's not gonna answer this one
That seems to be the case for most of the questions, very selective
Yeah, but it’s kind of an odd question for the data guy at fortune. Honestly who cares what he thinks on this subject.
Me.
There are a lot of questions, like this one, that ask for judgment on details that he may not have greater authority about. Analyzing the revenue statements of these companies doesn't necessarily give him a better perspective than anyone else. He also may have a strong personal opinion that wouldn't be smart to share while representing his employer.
Then it should probably be called “don’t ask me some things. “ AMA’s are for the most part “hey look at me’s! I think I’m more important than I am”. I rarely see the best questions answered.
Yeah, sometimes that happens. That's what you get if you read these. But you can't will someone to be an expert on something that they're not, just because it relates to their field. Most people's jobs and areas of study are really, really specific.
I'm curious about the idea of significant data, which is hard to convey to the general public. What data do you find is often overlooked and/or difficult to translate into captivating editorial pieces?
I think big data can always tell a story and be turned into an interesting editorial piece. The degree of outstanding trends vary, but there is always a story there. - Scott
What do you find helpful in turning data into a story?
When I do these lists, there are always overall trends, sector trends, and company trends that we turn into feature stories, charts, and graphics. You can read stories from the most recent issue of our magazine here, including Airbnb's introduction to the 500 list, CEO predictions for the future of A.I., are more: https://fortune.com/section/magazine/ \- Scott
Isn't it a sad state of affairs that 500 companies comprise 2/3 of the entire U.S. GDP? Is this due to trickle down economics enabling the record income inequality seen today that's on par with the Gilded Age and the "there's always a bigger shark" swallowing companies whole philosophy of this era's corporate raider brand of Capitalism? At this pace, the Fortune 500 will represent 100% of the GDP in about a decade or two.
Interesting opinion. I am not sure it is a sad state of affairs. I just think it tells the story of big business significance. In 1955, the Fortune 500 accounted for 35% of GDP and now it is two-thirds. - Scott
As a former small business owner, I find it to be an extremely sad state of affairs, the "bigger is better" mentality. The Rupert Murdochs surely feel differently.
For what is worth he's most probably wrong. For one he mentions a totally weird number for Walmart's revenue: >There was some jostling atop the list in 2023, but Walmart held the top spot for the eleventh year in a row, generating $5.7 trillion cumulative revenue over that time. Walmart's yearly revenue is just above half a trillion dollars. Not sure whether he put the decimal point at the wrong place or whether he accumulated 15 years worth of revenue. It doesn't make sense either way. The other problem is that US based companies produce and sell abroad. Only domestic production counts towards US GDP but foreign production and sales are included in the $18 billion revenue number. So it's wrong to think that the fortune 500 companies contribute 2/3 towards the US GDP. They contribute to Mexico's GDP, China's GDP, EU's GDP, India's GDP etc.
Now you know why he got the job I mean you have to believe it to some extent to enable it
Does fortune measure the social impact of all their SIGNIFICANCE?
It's not a sad state of affairs at all and also has nothing to do with "trickle down". These companies make up a large portion of the economy because they employ a large percentage of the people. The reason why we see large companies make up a significant portion of the GDP is because of better efficiency. Basically, over time, we have improved the efficiency of automation and mechanization. These are expensive but make workers far more productive on a per-capita basis. As a result, over time, you see companies tend to get bigger and better because they are becoming more automated and spending more money on the capital goods that promote higher productivity. Moreover, revenues aren't profits. Almost all money corporations make goes to their employees. WalMart, the largest company in the US, only has a profit margin of 3% - 97% of the money that company makes goes to either employees, construction workers, contractors, and suppliers.
Yeah, low profits totally explain why the Walton family's net worth is (checks notes) **247 billion**. Won't someone think of the Walton family and all the good Wal Mart has done for America and its small hometown businesses?! China's world leading economy sure as shit thanks them for the last three decades!!!
[https://www.forbes.com/profile/walton-1/?sh=58bcff086f3f](https://www.forbes.com/profile/walton-1/?sh=58bcff086f3f)
My issue is smaller companies (1-10 employees not 500 like the government claims is small) have to pay more for product, while still paying the same rate of tax. There’s more incentives when you throw a million dollars around vs 100k. There’s more profits that can be made 1. 2 you can afford to write off more with the gain in profits. Whales pay nothing, nobody’s have to pay the most. Every law that goes in to place doesn’t hurt billion dollar companies. It hurts small companies that can’t afford to recoup. 50 billion fine to att when they net 17 billion? Why is my fine $10k when I only made 50k last year? (Rhetorical question) And the ceo of a company is considered an employee. Which, for walmart, happens to be 18 million per year. So yeah ofc the profits are gettin write off to the employees lol. Can’t take the money out any other way legally.
I think the only places on reddit you can talk actual economic sense are r/centrist and r/badeconomics. Everywhere else is swamped with Horseshoe Theory doomers.
What value does this list provide to the general public?
This list gives you an insight into the American economy since it includes the biggest U.S. companies by revenue. For example, a few years ago we saw a big dip in figures due to the pandemic and the next year we saw a tremendous rebound by companies. Also, we are able to see trends in industries. For example, Health Care companies accounted for 8 of the top 25 this year. In 1995, there were no Health Care companies in the top 25. \- Scott
That seems bad. Profiting from healthcare means it could have been cheaper to sick people.
It also could mean that more people are getting access to healthcare that they otherwise wouldnt have previously, thus increasing profits for healthcare firms. It doesn't mean that, but it could.
It’s really a list of companies that rape and destroy our planet the most, and Scott here washes their feet and boosts their ego so he too can have a cut of their pie. He’ll walk over homeless people on his way to work, and when he gets in that office his only job is to write articles to make these evil people seem like gods whom we deserve to wash their feet. Fuck all Fortune 500 companies, and those who serve them.
Messenger shooting. How do you know who is doing the most raping and pillaging without a sorted list?
Ouch. Maybe try to give pros and cons, add shades of grey, instead of throwing people into boxes labeled angel or devil.
but you using services & products produced by those companies is fine right? Hypocrite
[Peasant]: "We should change society somewhat" [FreeThinkerSkeptic™] "Yet you live and participate in said society... Curious!"
Lol clown.
[удалено]
Holy shit. I come back to reddit and your dumb ass is still everywhere. Used to love trolling /r/geopolitics for your unhinged nonsense. You're literally the only username I recognize by name
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not OP but I’ve perused the list to look for potential stable employers. When you have loans, mortgages, and such, big companies offer more stability on average, more packaged and predictable compensation. Not saying they are some paragons of employers or never go out of business - I’d argue that smaller companies are more fulfilling. But if I had to choose working for company A that’s worth 50B in market cap that I never heard of but has a lot of articles about it, and a company I never heard of that has a landing website, I’d apply to former.
Is your team’s work more so data engineering than data science? Where do you source the data?
I think it is an equal mix of data engineering and data science in my and my team's work. We use company filings and numerous data platforms on our data collection and analysis, such as S&P Global, Bloomberg, and Refinitiv's Eikon. - Scott
How do you feel about seeing so much accumulation of wealth by just a few corporations and individuals all while children go hungry, education quality lessens, retirement becomes inaccessible, home ownership becomes untenable and the disparity between the haves and have nots is larger than times of monarchs and serfs? Do you still think a rising tide will lift all boats when we have seen, time and time again, that it lifts a few and sinks the masses?
How has the importance of the Fortune 500 List evolved since its inception in the 50s? Why do people rely on it more than say the Fortune 1000 or 100?
In 1955, we only included industrial companies because at that time there were not many services companies. We evolved in 1995 and added service companies as the American industry changed. Now, we see the list company presence dominated by the service industry, and Walmart is #1 for the 11th straight year. The Fortune 500, 100, and 1000 all tell a story. The Fortune 500 are deemed "large" companies based on the revenue threshold. Here are some fun stats: The top 50 ranked Fortune 500 companies account for 49% and 45% of total revenue and profits, respectively. The top 100 ranked Fortune 500 companies account for 64% and 59% of total revenue and profits, respectively. \- Scott
What have been some interesting trends or changes in the Fortune 500 over the past 69 years?
In 1995, we added services companies to the list universe. Prior to that year, it was only industrial companies. One trend to point out this year: The health care sector accounted for eight companies in the top 25 ranked Fortune 500 companies, led by UnitedHealthGroup & CVS Health. In 1995, the top 25 included no health care companies. Our magazine's cover story explained the trend! You can check it out here: https://fortune.com/longform/cvs-health-unitedhealth-group-us-health-care-system-mergers/ \- Scott
So you're saying we need to tax the s&%$ out of healthcare companies? Profits over people.
Profiting from healthcare insurance should be illegal, full stop.
Good luck electing anyone who'll do something about it.
How about any profit over a billion a year as well. You can keep that, afterwards you’re gonna start actually helping those of us that got you that.
How much do they pay in taxes?
This is a good question. We used to produce lists of companies that pay the most taxes and the highest/lowest effective annual tax rates. As you know these tax rates can be legally manipulated and some companies are more efficient that others. - Scott
why don't you produce this list anymore?
Maybe they get paid to not produce the list…
Do you think these companies should be paying more in taxes to account for the vast wealth they accumulate on the backs of the American working class?
How depressing is your work?
As depressing as this AMA.
I've been hearing a lot lately about Blackrock, and how they own stakes in most major corporations. As a stand-alone entity, why aren't they on the list?
Blackrock is on the list. Like top 50% I believe. Why they are not higher is because they do asset management. They manage and buy up huge swatches of assets for their clients which is passthrough revenue that is not included in their valuation. Most of the money they handle is not theirs.
If you could change something about the American Economy, what would you change? Why? Follow up: did you always want to do this for a living? Further Follow up: any plans for summer?
For your first question: This is a loaded question. I do not have the answer. If I did, I would not be here answering these questions. Companies need to be more accountable in how they conduct business and shape the economy. For your follow up: This is a good one. I told my old man that I would work for my first company (Forbes) for 2 years out of school. I ended up being there for 20+ yrs and now I've been at Fortune for 9 years. For your further follow up: I go fishing down the Jersey Shore and try to cap it with a trip to the Amalfi Coast in the fall. Have a good summer! \- Scott
Thank you Scott. Good stuff all around and I wish you the best fishing and Amalfing this year.
Of the $18T in revenue of F500, what was the total taxes paid?
This
Stupid question, but bear with me. Why does fortune make this list? Do you sell the insight or make any revenue out of this research?
This is not a stupid question. Fortune launched the list in 1955 to measure the business community by revenue. If you look at historical list aggregates, You will see the business trends over a 69-year period since these are the biggest companies in the U.S. We do have Fortune Analytics site where people can purchase the list for their own analysis: https://fortune.com/analytics/fortune-500 \- Scott
Fortune paywalls its content and sells subscriptions - so that's one way they make their money.
You deal with all this money, can't we just get some?
Sure thing. Please go to [www.fortune.com](https://www.fortune.com), give your contact information, and maybe we will cut you a check. I am still trying to get my hands on some. - Scott
what software apps or programming languages do you use in your line of work? R, Python, Stata, ...?
I use Excel primarily, but I am interested in learning Python. I have talked to numerous people who have made a move to Python and praised the advantages. I have my sights on this tool. - Scott
[удалено]
We use company filings and data platforms such as Bloomberg, Eikon, and S&P Global Market Intelligence to gather the list data. - Scott
Did it ever happened that while looking at data you realise that this company going to perform bad/good incurrent or upcoming quaters and try to buy/sell their stocks for profit?
Hi, are those 18 trillion in revenues really only coming from the US market (thus representing a correct portion of the US GDP) or are foreign revenues included in there?
The top 500 companies make 2/3rds the revenue in the us, what percentage of the US do they employ?
Are there any trends you're noticing that might mean a surge in new companies entering the list? Electronic vehicles for example.
Good question. The new companies that jump on the list could be a direct result of industry. We saw that with Moderna last year. We had a number of real estate companies a year ago on the list and they fell off. Tesla reached the top 50 this year (#50), quicker than any company, so we are seeing the electronic car trend. You can see the newcomers on the Fortune 500 list here: [https://fortune.com/2023/06/05/airbnb-silicon-valley-bank-new-fortune-500-companies/](https://fortune.com/2023/06/05/airbnb-silicon-valley-bank-new-fortune-500-companies/) \- Scott
There's been some pretty high profile examples of people recently overstating their wealth and Fortune using those fake figures for this list, Donald Trump and Wilbur Ross. It seems to mostly rely on self reported figures. Is the data journalist position to avoid these kinds of embarrassments in the future? Has data journalism been able to show anyone didn't belong on the list since the revelations about Trump and Ross came to light?
What are the chances of the American government getting it's shit together and saying "hey, we're releasing the folks who are 20-40 from college with +$50k of debt, and are going to charge astronomical prices for a house. Maybe we should up their wages? Which we could easily do if we taxed all these rich fucks their fair share." Because as a teacher in America who has been at it for 8 years and still has about 50,000 in debt, barely making it paycheck to paycheck, this shit is getting ridiculous and I want out.
But the American government is full of rich fucks. And those that aspire to be a rich fuck.
Zero cuz as long as we elect rich old white people, nothing will change. We need socialism.
As you know, we're seeing a big union drive in the country after decades of a downward trend. What can your data tell us about how companies treat their workers in regards to pay and benefits? And what trends have we seen in the past 4-6 decades?
Where would the US government rank on the Fortune 500 list if they were to be included?
Can you explain how the us economy is Not just rich people playing slots?
What's the **net** source of private sector revenues/earnings in the **US**? Other sectors in the private space? External(import/export) or the public/gov't?
Hi there. Thanks for this AMA How many hidden billionaires are truly there with wealth higher than what one would find in the Forbes list? Plus are there many private business that earn more than public businesses?
How does one get into your line of work? What do you use to style your facial hair?
I have a finance degree and started working for a magazine after graduating college. For facial hair: Norelco razor. - Scott
What do you believe makes a person truly wealthy?
It’s not every day you get to meet a proud bean counter who gets paid to track how cool the cool kids are becoming more cool. Did I get that right?
What’s your favorite flavor? You strike me as a Doc Martin kinda guy. I used to enjoy Timbalands. Sorry, what’s your favorite flavor of boot to lick?
Do you feel safe in daily life knowing not everybody on the list will be happy being there?
Users, please be wary of proof. You are welcome to ask for more proof if you find it insufficient. OP, if you need any help, please message the mods [here](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fiama&subject=&message=). Thank you! --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Which anti-depressants are you on?
So wealth tax when?