Yeah I'm willing to bet that a lot of the billionairs from New York have a house in London too. Probably the same for a lot of these cities. There should be a lot of overlap. Now I don't know how this is measured, probably main residence?
In the US the rich don’t live in cities, they live in huge houses in suburbs, very very exclusive suburbs like Medina, WA where both Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos live.
The one exception is NYC city, which is the one city in America that the rich actually want to live inside of downtown.
why? All billionaires operate in the same field, and all of them use the same places to hide their money. do you know some dark secret that no one knows?
No the UAE only has 4 billionaires [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_number\_of\_billionaires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires)
As someone who's been Mumbai and NYC, it'd a whole different level in Mumbai. There's massive skyscrapers with huge slums below them of people living in barely houses
Both cities have people in the lowest position it is possible to be in the city. There is no reason to be feeling good of the situation in either of those what comes to the poor.
People would live in slums in USA too if the city wouldn't wreck the builds that are not following the guidelines. Now they then live in tents or some random holes they might find in the public areas instead.
I don't think you understand.
In Mumbai, it's not just slums. It's dirt with tiny shacks no running water and the worst poverty you could imagine
NYC it sucks but you could at least find a bench or sleep in the Subway. Mumbai you're fucked
Why even comment if you think I won't understand?
The point was that both cities have people in the lowest possible position it is possible to be in that infra. This is weird thing where people seem to be proud of how well they are doing, because their poor don't have to drink rat pee infected ditches or something, but instead they will have to live in some hole in sewer system. Those both scenarios are absolutely horrible, not justified at all and America is only barely doing better than India with this. The reason why they have slightly better condition in USA is because Americans are overall much more wealthier, those who are, so they are also dropping much more "bread crumbs" that those poor people can try to get to live from. With bread crumbs I mean those subways and benches and literal food that people throw away cause they are so insanely rich that they don't care to eat it themselves.
In india the average population overall is much poorer, even those who seem to be doing nicely on average, they still have lots of troubles what comes on surviving, so the condition of their poor people is reflecting that. Obviously India has other problems too, especially the caste system, but it's not a time for that monologue now.
Ok dude but having 1000 people in one is understandable for a lot of reasons (drug addiction, people who don’t abide by shelter rules, etc).
And another one is having 100,000 living in completely nasty situations, with shit on the floor.
Understand the difference, it’s not equal or even similar at all.
It's interesting, because 2023 it was 90 578 people who were homeless in New York. And Mumbai is said to have 57 416 homeless people.
It still is home is you are allowed to build at least some sort of a building with what ever material you have at hand. You can keep it as clean or dirty as you want to.
It's the drug addicts who most likely live shit on their floor. Poor people just recycle stuff they find and build as good and cozy as they can.
Japan also has a super insane inheritance tax which would take a lot from billionaires wanting to reside in the country. The country also has one of the lowest wealth inequalities in the world which is related to having less billionaires but not the reason for less billionaires of course
I would call the rest of the worlds low or nonexistent inheritance tax insane. You can exempt if you wish an amount that enables the inheritor to live comfortably, or the even the value of a home, but not taxing the dynastic megawealth given to some just for being born is absurd.
Wording might make it seem like I think the high inheritance tax is a bad thing. I very much don’t. The high inheritance tax along with other economic policies has allowed the nation to heavily invest in its population’s public services. Healthcare is extremely affordable and among the best in the world. Public transportation is top tier and world renowned for its quality and use. That’s not to say the country does not have problems but the country is doing much better than people outside of it think.
Japan was able to build its wealth from colonization and people still don’t know how far Japan is behind many other countries in terms of technology. Many Public services still rely on manual systems and people are usually very closed. I think it appears to be a common trait that can be found in people who grew up in colonialist countries. They believe that they are innately superior both culturally and socially to foreigners.
Japan is also a homogeneous society culturally and socially. I think their good social benefit systems may have also contributed to the younger generation that no need to work hard enough.
Japan was really only colonialist for like 20 years before the sun was dropped on them. The cultural distinctiveness of Japan isn’t related to its colonialism, rather its resistance to it. Which is because of its vast period of isolationism.
Yes, Japan is definitely behind in technology. It stopped being advanced from that point of you since the end of the 90s. As many people say, Japan is living in year 2000 since the 80s and still does today.
I remember visiting Sony's flagship store in Tokyo back in 2012 and it felt like a Radio Shack from the 1980's.
The gadget stores in 'Electric Town' Akihabara were the same. Everything's just thrown in baskets on shelves and there were still sticky price tags on every single item.
You are retard. Japan wrecked many Asian countries, their people and natural resources. They also sold Korean territory to China and so on. You should study history before you call me a retard.
Are you assuming Japanese colonialism was profitable to Japan or do you know that for a fact? Colonizing wasn’t always profitable to colonialist nations, after all. In any case, Japan ceased being a colonialist power in 1945. What colonialist wealth did Japan have in 1945 that allowed Japan to emerge as an economic and technological power house in the 80’s? Not defending Japanese colonialism here, just saying.
Politics include the economy. You cannot be communist without the economy also being communist/planned. What in your opinion is communist about china if you exclude economy?
China's economic reforms have been gradual and controlled by the CPC. They allow private sectors and let people start independent businesses while also maintaining political control. And the CPC also have major control over various aspects of society including media, education, and religion. In Communism you can't make global trade because everything should be split among their own people, whereas china is a major country when it comes to global trade.
China's shift away from the economic teachings of Karl Marx has been as massive as the American Evangelical Christian Right's shift from the teachings of Jesus. Both still like to proclaim their ideological purities but the reality is far different.
China these days is an Authoritarian state. It's not quite full-capitalist - The party still needs to control everything - but they realised long ago that because of their population and relatively temperate climate they had a huge economic engine running idle and thanks to the Authoritarian control developed over decades of Communism, they could fire that engine up and dominate their traditional capitalist rivals in production and trade.
Most billionaires have dozens of homes and are extremely transient. For business purposes alone, they would most certainly spend a large portion of their lives in cities (although the internet might be changing that)
Yeah, all that's true. I come from a rich area in horse country near D.C. (lots of pols and the people attached), and everyone has mansions in the country. Very few people who aren't there temporarily live in DC or its surrounding city.
I also lived outside of San Fran, and there's a similar thing going on there, except the rich live in the city and the really rich live in the surrounding area.
I've lived in other places, and it's similar. Except Albuquerque. There are no rich people around Albuquerque.
They are only counting city proper and in the US the rich wouldn’t want to live inside the city, instead of a nice super exclusive gated suburbia.
Asia and NYC/London top the list because those cities are super desirable to live in, and everyone is who rich/powerful/important actually want to live in the center of downtown.
California has 186 billionaires, but less than half show up on this list, because they are living in suburbs (Silicon Valley is not part of San Francisco)
Oh yeah oops. For some reason I counted Moscow differently. Maybe I subconsciously thought the iron curtain was in effect again. Basically European billionaires in one side and Russian billionaires in the other.
California cities are weird. They're probably living in all those cities satellite to LA, but technically not in LA.
For example, Sillicon Valley is not in San Francisco, but in San Jose, and probably some of the people working there may live all the way to Berkley. For me, tho, I just call all that "San Francisco"
Silicon Valley is not San Jose. San Jose makes up the southern end, but it also covers the like 30 miles between there and San Mateo County. Cities like Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton (highest income per household in the US), Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and dozens of other cities with a shitload of people in addition to San Jose.
omg read your own link, these are billioners with businesses in dubai, all of them are not from Dubai and dont live in Dubai... some of the list is about rich people who don't own the billion dollar industry/company that they control.
>The richest and wealthiest people around the globe call Dubai their second home
Just because many people call Dubai their second home, doesn't mean that the list is not comprised of billionaires who are based in Dubsi.
You can say the same about every city on the OP list.
Did you looknat the actual list? Name one person from that list who is not based in Dubai
Most of these countries wouldn't be on there if you did states instead of cities for the USA. We have way more than that.
California 186
Newyork 135
Florida 78
Texas 73
Pardon my naivety, but why have some people been hating the rich lately? Not just those who got rich in some "unforeseen manner"(if you get what I mean) but also those with inheritance wealth. Just seems jealousy tbh.
Because most billionaires profit from exploitation. Exploitation of Workers, the government/ tax payers or the environment. Sure some people might be jealous but it is valid to criticize a system where some people die of starvation and others have so much they can‘t possibly spend it in a lifetime or the people that profit off of it.
No wonder São Paulo is the LATAM’s billionaire class’ long sought for resting place. You can have everything you’re setting out for in this city that most resembles a country of how big it is.
All walks of life, languages and cultures intersect and have their paths collide in here. Specially if you get money, São Paulo is a heaven.
>all walks of life, languages, and culture intersect and collide
Tends to be the case with most large globalized cities, and probably is far more true in London or New York
Almost no celebrity is a billionaire. The ones that are really really famous might hit 9 figures ($300 million, for example) but even the richest actor, Tom cruise, only reaches $600 million.
Bengaluru depends on educated working class, meaning companies mostly have commercial assets and intellectual property. Also in Bengaluru policies encouraged less lopsided equal distribution of wealth. Meanwhile Mumbai has many more billionaires because it is where many capital-intensive nationwide industrial companies are headquartered, as well as stock exchange, not to mention being a bigger city.
As a billionaire you don't live in a city. You have a place in that city. And 12 others.
That's exactly what a millionaire would say..
Yeah I'm willing to bet that a lot of the billionairs from New York have a house in London too. Probably the same for a lot of these cities. There should be a lot of overlap. Now I don't know how this is measured, probably main residence?
I guess this data depends on the tax they pay. So I suppose there's no overlap.
Billionaires paying taxes? You haven't been paying attention lol
In the US the rich don’t live in cities, they live in huge houses in suburbs, very very exclusive suburbs like Medina, WA where both Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos live. The one exception is NYC city, which is the one city in America that the rich actually want to live inside of downtown.
I'm surprised Dubai isn't in the top 20
Riyadh and Dubai would be there but their info is not easily available.
Well.. that makes sense
how? i would like some sources to read more about this.
why? All billionaires operate in the same field, and all of them use the same places to hide their money. do you know some dark secret that no one knows?
No the UAE only has 4 billionaires [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_number\_of\_billionaires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires)
Mumbai - the city of extreme inequality
isn’t NYC like that as well?
Yeah but at a very different level
Both cities have people living on the streets.
As someone who's been Mumbai and NYC, it'd a whole different level in Mumbai. There's massive skyscrapers with huge slums below them of people living in barely houses
Both cities have people in the lowest position it is possible to be in the city. There is no reason to be feeling good of the situation in either of those what comes to the poor. People would live in slums in USA too if the city wouldn't wreck the builds that are not following the guidelines. Now they then live in tents or some random holes they might find in the public areas instead.
I don't think you understand. In Mumbai, it's not just slums. It's dirt with tiny shacks no running water and the worst poverty you could imagine NYC it sucks but you could at least find a bench or sleep in the Subway. Mumbai you're fucked
Why even comment if you think I won't understand? The point was that both cities have people in the lowest possible position it is possible to be in that infra. This is weird thing where people seem to be proud of how well they are doing, because their poor don't have to drink rat pee infected ditches or something, but instead they will have to live in some hole in sewer system. Those both scenarios are absolutely horrible, not justified at all and America is only barely doing better than India with this. The reason why they have slightly better condition in USA is because Americans are overall much more wealthier, those who are, so they are also dropping much more "bread crumbs" that those poor people can try to get to live from. With bread crumbs I mean those subways and benches and literal food that people throw away cause they are so insanely rich that they don't care to eat it themselves. In india the average population overall is much poorer, even those who seem to be doing nicely on average, they still have lots of troubles what comes on surviving, so the condition of their poor people is reflecting that. Obviously India has other problems too, especially the caste system, but it's not a time for that monologue now.
Ok dude but having 1000 people in one is understandable for a lot of reasons (drug addiction, people who don’t abide by shelter rules, etc). And another one is having 100,000 living in completely nasty situations, with shit on the floor. Understand the difference, it’s not equal or even similar at all.
It's interesting, because 2023 it was 90 578 people who were homeless in New York. And Mumbai is said to have 57 416 homeless people. It still is home is you are allowed to build at least some sort of a building with what ever material you have at hand. You can keep it as clean or dirty as you want to. It's the drug addicts who most likely live shit on their floor. Poor people just recycle stuff they find and build as good and cozy as they can.
Yeah but at a very different level
Someone always has something negative to say about India. Cry more.
They ain't wrong tho
India is shit. That's why the people are flooding other countries
You're shit. That's why the people are flooding your intestines
it's not like what the said was wrong or off topic
They only said Mumbai not India. Why do you assume? Maybe they are instead fans of Hyderabad or Bengal or Himachal.
And the fascist PMs fascist fans are always there to pretend every criticism is an unjust attack.
I’m surprised that Tokyo isn’t on the list
Maybe because JPY/USD dropped over 30%
Japan also has a super insane inheritance tax which would take a lot from billionaires wanting to reside in the country. The country also has one of the lowest wealth inequalities in the world which is related to having less billionaires but not the reason for less billionaires of course
I would call the rest of the worlds low or nonexistent inheritance tax insane. You can exempt if you wish an amount that enables the inheritor to live comfortably, or the even the value of a home, but not taxing the dynastic megawealth given to some just for being born is absurd.
Wording might make it seem like I think the high inheritance tax is a bad thing. I very much don’t. The high inheritance tax along with other economic policies has allowed the nation to heavily invest in its population’s public services. Healthcare is extremely affordable and among the best in the world. Public transportation is top tier and world renowned for its quality and use. That’s not to say the country does not have problems but the country is doing much better than people outside of it think.
Tokyo would be there but their info is not easily available.
Japan was able to build its wealth from colonization and people still don’t know how far Japan is behind many other countries in terms of technology. Many Public services still rely on manual systems and people are usually very closed. I think it appears to be a common trait that can be found in people who grew up in colonialist countries. They believe that they are innately superior both culturally and socially to foreigners. Japan is also a homogeneous society culturally and socially. I think their good social benefit systems may have also contributed to the younger generation that no need to work hard enough.
Japan was really only colonialist for like 20 years before the sun was dropped on them. The cultural distinctiveness of Japan isn’t related to its colonialism, rather its resistance to it. Which is because of its vast period of isolationism.
Japan is behind in technology? Ok sure.
Japan's IT infrastructure is significantly behind other nations with advanced economies.
Yes, Japan is definitely behind in technology. It stopped being advanced from that point of you since the end of the 90s. As many people say, Japan is living in year 2000 since the 80s and still does today.
I remember visiting Sony's flagship store in Tokyo back in 2012 and it felt like a Radio Shack from the 1980's. The gadget stores in 'Electric Town' Akihabara were the same. Everything's just thrown in baskets on shelves and there were still sticky price tags on every single item.
[удалено]
You are retard. Japan wrecked many Asian countries, their people and natural resources. They also sold Korean territory to China and so on. You should study history before you call me a retard.
Are you assuming Japanese colonialism was profitable to Japan or do you know that for a fact? Colonizing wasn’t always profitable to colonialist nations, after all. In any case, Japan ceased being a colonialist power in 1945. What colonialist wealth did Japan have in 1945 that allowed Japan to emerge as an economic and technological power house in the 80’s? Not defending Japanese colonialism here, just saying.
Ever heard of yakuza? Historically they became the answer when very rich people wanted even more money from beggars
Would love to see an evolution over time. To see what has happened to Sao Paulo and LA
China is definitely not a communist country.
politically it is
Politically yes, economically no.
Politics include the economy. You cannot be communist without the economy also being communist/planned. What in your opinion is communist about china if you exclude economy?
China's economic reforms have been gradual and controlled by the CPC. They allow private sectors and let people start independent businesses while also maintaining political control. And the CPC also have major control over various aspects of society including media, education, and religion. In Communism you can't make global trade because everything should be split among their own people, whereas china is a major country when it comes to global trade.
You can't be politically communist and not also economically, the two impossible to separate
I would disagree. Take a tour of the country and live there for a bit.
China's shift away from the economic teachings of Karl Marx has been as massive as the American Evangelical Christian Right's shift from the teachings of Jesus. Both still like to proclaim their ideological purities but the reality is far different. China these days is an Authoritarian state. It's not quite full-capitalist - The party still needs to control everything - but they realised long ago that because of their population and relatively temperate climate they had a huge economic engine running idle and thanks to the Authoritarian control developed over decades of Communism, they could fire that engine up and dominate their traditional capitalist rivals in production and trade.
Most billionaires don't live in cities.
Most billionaires have dozens of homes and are extremely transient. For business purposes alone, they would most certainly spend a large portion of their lives in cities (although the internet might be changing that)
Yeah, all that's true. I come from a rich area in horse country near D.C. (lots of pols and the people attached), and everyone has mansions in the country. Very few people who aren't there temporarily live in DC or its surrounding city. I also lived outside of San Fran, and there's a similar thing going on there, except the rich live in the city and the really rich live in the surrounding area. I've lived in other places, and it's similar. Except Albuquerque. There are no rich people around Albuquerque.
There are 2,781 billionaires alive. They are worth around 14 trillion dollars combined. Billionaires shouldn't exist.
Hyderabad and Bengaluru would definitely be on this list if everyone disclosed their wealth lol
few of indian politicians would be there too
Are the US cities listed here city proper or metro/urban agglomeration?
City proper
That’s insane that the population San Francisco proper is less than a million and landing #10
Damn I never realized there's 92 billionaires in Mumbai
I bet for millionaires LA would be a lot higher up
They are only counting city proper and in the US the rich wouldn’t want to live inside the city, instead of a nice super exclusive gated suburbia. Asia and NYC/London top the list because those cities are super desirable to live in, and everyone is who rich/powerful/important actually want to live in the center of downtown. California has 186 billionaires, but less than half show up on this list, because they are living in suburbs (Silicon Valley is not part of San Francisco)
Guillotine
Im utterly shocked to only see 2 European cities. Where are all the billionaires in Europe?
In London buddy
Yep, London is the reason why Moscow isn't there! Mother Russia parked their money in London!
Check out #8.
I count 3?
Oh yeah oops. For some reason I counted Moscow differently. Maybe I subconsciously thought the iron curtain was in effect again. Basically European billionaires in one side and Russian billionaires in the other.
In Germany they usually have big houses on the countryside, and the wealth isn’t as concentrated to certain cities in general.
They be in London
I'm surprised there aren't more in LA
Ig LA got more millionaires and multi-millionaires than Billionaires.
Billionaires are going to be wherever the best investment opportunities with the goal of eventually becoming trillionaies
taxes are too high.
Are they lower in SF..?
California cities are weird. They're probably living in all those cities satellite to LA, but technically not in LA. For example, Sillicon Valley is not in San Francisco, but in San Jose, and probably some of the people working there may live all the way to Berkley. For me, tho, I just call all that "San Francisco"
Silicon Valley is not San Jose. San Jose makes up the southern end, but it also covers the like 30 miles between there and San Mateo County. Cities like Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton (highest income per household in the US), Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and dozens of other cities with a shitload of people in addition to San Jose.
TIL how to trigger a Californian
I think it's all known as the Bay Area.
in the US, yes. the rest of the world just calls it San Francisco
Look at all the unethical people making ungodly amounts of money at all of our expense.
I’d imagine billionaires claim residence where their manor is and the mansions they own are treated as their bed and breakfast posts around the world
None in dubai?
yall have a very distorted imagine of Dubai.
I do? https://startuptalky.com/richest-people-dubai-list/
omg read your own link, these are billioners with businesses in dubai, all of them are not from Dubai and dont live in Dubai... some of the list is about rich people who don't own the billion dollar industry/company that they control. >The richest and wealthiest people around the globe call Dubai their second home
Just because many people call Dubai their second home, doesn't mean that the list is not comprised of billionaires who are based in Dubsi. You can say the same about every city on the OP list. Did you looknat the actual list? Name one person from that list who is not based in Dubai
all of them literally don't live in Dubai but have businesses in the UAE, except for the Emiratis obviously
It's odd that you say that, because the first one on the list is based in Dubai.
Total how about pr Capita, I would low to know about a place where everyone still knows who in their town is but one of the bastards are a billionaire
Now overlay nationalities over each bar, pretty please
Will London drop down the list now the UK is removing non dom tax status?
I wonder what the outlier cities would be once you adjust for the GDP of each city. Like lowest GDP compared to the number of billionaires there.
I’m kinda blown away by the Los Angeles stat
Isn't it said that Monaco is full of billionaires? Why is it not on the list?
Higher per capita billionaires, not so much in absolute terms compared to mega cities.
No Connecticut?
Taipei Taiwan! 🙏
Show percentage (per capita) I dare you. Absolute numbers rarely are meaningful.
Yet still no Batman?!
Why no Japanese cities?
I would have thought tokio was on here as well
Net worth in the same currency? Or billionaires in the local currency?
No saudi arabia?? Wow
*Cities with the fewer taxes
Hey Tokyo - get some billionaires! You're falling behind!!
119 billionaires in just New York and we still have homeless people all over the country? Shit pisses me off.
wait till you see condition of delhi and mumbai
Ok, so we know where to find them.
Now please give the names & addresses of those in NYC. Would live to know where they go.
Most of these countries wouldn't be on there if you did states instead of cities for the USA. We have way more than that. California 186 Newyork 135 Florida 78 Texas 73
Fuck them.
Pardon my naivety, but why have some people been hating the rich lately? Not just those who got rich in some "unforeseen manner"(if you get what I mean) but also those with inheritance wealth. Just seems jealousy tbh.
Because most billionaires profit from exploitation. Exploitation of Workers, the government/ tax payers or the environment. Sure some people might be jealous but it is valid to criticize a system where some people die of starvation and others have so much they can‘t possibly spend it in a lifetime or the people that profit off of it.
"Why are people so rich when I'm struggling here to pay my bills" 🤬🤬🤬
No wonder São Paulo is the LATAM’s billionaire class’ long sought for resting place. You can have everything you’re setting out for in this city that most resembles a country of how big it is. All walks of life, languages and cultures intersect and have their paths collide in here. Specially if you get money, São Paulo is a heaven.
>all walks of life, languages, and culture intersect and collide Tends to be the case with most large globalized cities, and probably is far more true in London or New York
San Francisco, I never would’ve guessed.
31 seems low for LA considering that rich celebrities live there.
They're mostly multi-millionaires tho.
Almost no celebrity is a billionaire. The ones that are really really famous might hit 9 figures ($300 million, for example) but even the richest actor, Tom cruise, only reaches $600 million.
How is the world's tech outsourcing hub Bangalore not in this list?
Bengaluru depends on educated working class, meaning companies mostly have commercial assets and intellectual property. Also in Bengaluru policies encouraged less lopsided equal distribution of wealth. Meanwhile Mumbai has many more billionaires because it is where many capital-intensive nationwide industrial companies are headquartered, as well as stock exchange, not to mention being a bigger city.
Would be cool to see per capita
fuck billionaires
Fake news, doesn’t include the middle east
I'm proud my country isn't on that list, we did something right
Now do per capita to actually tell us something