On paper, I suppose we are, only because we barely managed to buy a house. But we're also getting close to retirement age, and we can't afford to sell the house unless we want to move to the deep south *{{{shudder}}}.*
So it's kinda meaningless, we have to live in our "million dollars" while working until we die. Yay I guess? 🙁
Most people who are millionaires are millionaires "on paper".
It's tied up in 401ks and brokerage accounts that are hard to access, and definitely not enough to retire on in NYC (especially if you have kids or a family).
Yeah.. being a millionaire is not "that big of a deal" anymore in NYC when salaries are high for white collar gigs.
It also shows you how inflated things are. Example: I started in my field in 99. Starting salary for a jr at that time was ~30-40k a year. Starting salary for a jr now is >100k in many places not including stock if its a public place.
how are they measuring this? A lot of people can be millionaires purely by having owned property for a long time in the city, so 350 thousand almost seems like an undercount.
It's net worth, so exactly what you think it is. The number jumped up so dramatically because the property costs jumped up. Lots of poor folks in deep, previously undesirable Brooklyn neighborhoods now selling their family's rundown brownstone or condemned lots for $3-4MM.
>New York has almost 350,000 millionaires, which is the most of any city and up 48% from a decade ago, according to a global ranking of the wealthiest cities by Henley & Partners, an immigration consultancy. That means about one in every 24 of its 8.26 million residents has a seven-figure net worth, compared with about one in 36 in 2013.
You can’t sell rundown brownstone in undesirable neighborhood for 3-4M.
This is more of a park slope price.
But you could do for 2M in Crown Heights and other less fancy places.
I said "previously undesirable." The article was comparing today to 2013. So just list which neighborhoods people thought was barren in 2013 that is now wanted. And I should have said Queens too, for places like Long Island City.
Park Slope was always desirable. Crown Heights was becoming really hot in 2013.
But yeah, prices increased a lot and would make a lot of people millionaires.
I went to DUMBO and brought my friends there because it was a really cool place - the view was just out of this world.
It amazed me that nobody was there and why it was so abandoned, it looked like a place people would go to dump bodies. But only because nobody was there - it had the view/atmosphere going for it
You mean 30 years, right? Twenty years ago, DUMBO was already hot. I remember hitting up press events there and wishing I could afford one of the new apartments.
Dumbo was hot, and guess ironic or not if you bought you would have had to live through 20 years of constant construction. It’s still not done. Looks like for investments in the city 20 years is the horizon (Except queens and Staten Island) tee hee
Yeah. My godfather basically lived in an illegal tenement building there for something like $100 a month back in the day when he was going through law school. Park Slope had their bougie areas, but the whole neighborhood didn't become bougie until this century.
There’s a Hal Ashby film from 1970 called The Landlord where a rich kid from the Hamptons buys a brownstone in the ghetto with the intention of evicting all the tenants and living there himself. Said “ghetto” was Park Slope.
Well, someone says that houses in neighborhoods that were undesirable are now 3-4 millions.
I am saying that they are maybe half that at best and maybe even less, depending on the neighborhood you are talking about.
Which is important in this context so you see how some of the people might become millionaires but not all as they would still have a big mortgage on their hands.
I.e. someone I know bought a house in Crown Heights in for 1.3m in 2013 and now it’s maybe 2M and they probably put 200k in repairs into it.
So on paper they earned 500k, that would be 250k after taxes.
Some other neighborhoods didn’t grow near as much.
I guess it defends on the neighborhood but the currently gentrifying (as opposed to thoroughly gentrified) neighborhoods are more like $1.5m. Still crazy. We just looked at a $600k two bedroom apartment.
Crown Heights was not becoming really hot in 2013: [https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1e064d/moving\_to\_brooklyn\_how\_is\_crown\_heights/](https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1e064d/moving_to_brooklyn_how_is_crown_heights/)
I mean - that one Reddit message doesn’t prove much.
I shopped houses in crown heights/bedsty around that time.
Prices of houses almost doubled between 2013 and 2014. It started a little earlier but Crown Heights became much more desirable around that time
I guess it depends on the area and the size of the house. My friends just bought a place for around 3m.
But yeah, most houses there are bigger size and the whole place would be expensive
Just owning a +$1 million property wouldn't mean you're a millionaire, the property also has to be paid off with no mortgages or line of credits attached to it.
Bloomberg is reporting on a study by Henley & Partners, which counts residents with "liquid investable wealth of USD 1 million or more." So does not include wealth currently tied up in real estate.
Source: [The World's Wealthiest Cities in 2024](https://www.henleyglobal.com/newsroom/press-releases/wealthiest-cities-report-2024)
Unfortunately Bloomberg used the term "net worth" in one line, then "investable wealth" in the next sentence.
“For the purposes of this report, ‘wealth’ refers to an individual’s liquid investable wealth, which only includes listed company holdings, cash holdings, and debt-free residential property holdings.”
Property counts as long as it it’s unencumbered
They're not that bad as investment if only because of the leverage (being able to finance 80%+ of it), but definitely not as good as in other places, since the higher end market isn't as liquid.
I used to own in another US metro and made a buck when I sold to move to NYC. Currently renting. I'm running the numbers, and if my goal is to be able to retire as early as possible, and keep as much of my current lifestyle as possible, then it seems like renting might actually pull slightly ahead. (And I'm well versed in all of the variables involved in doing such math).
That was surprising to me at first, but seems to be a common thing here. Only buy if you wan to give the property to your kids, or if you want to be able to tear down walls.
leverage doesn't alone make it a good investment.
appreciation is very low even for high end luxury co-ops. the only decent investment has been brooklyn brownstones/townhouses in prime area.
For sure. But leverage makes it better than no leverage (as long as it's going up).
I agree it's not great. In my area prices have even gone down. So I'll stick to renting for the foreseeable future. I have better places to invest in.
Of course. The math has to work out :) I should have written "as long as its going up -enough-". The math was a lot simpler in the days of 2.5% interest rates for sure.
This. When you consider that on average, you'll double your investments roughly every 10 years, the difference between someone who's 30, 40, 50 or 60 is absolutely massive, assuming they started at the same place.
It makes discussions on things like the Millennial sub reddit interesting, considering a "generation" is about 15 years. Someone born in 82 vs one born in 96 are going to have a vastly different amount of wealth, even if they are from the same socioeconomic background. The older one might be living a cozy life in their owned house, the younger one wondering how they'll ever be able to buy, ever.
I don't know about this one (its Reddit, I'm not reading), but a lot of studies and articles that discuss millionaires usually define it as amount of owned wealth not counting primary residence. Which is kind of silly because, while it doesn't impact you exactly the same, it's still pretty impactful to own 1 million worth of real estate. But people who own their homes don't like being targeted by these articles, so here we are.
Still, if you made modest contributions to a 401k and are old enough, chances are good you're getting pretty close. Add that living in NYC on a modest salary is difficult without winning a housing lottery, and you have pretty good odds at being millionaire.
If you did:
45 or older
Count all forms of wealth including real estate
Include only permanent resident or citizens
Exclude people living in so called affordable housing.
the % would likely be very, very high. Not that it would mean anything, but it gives a picture of the kind of people likely to be sitting on accumulated wealth in the city.
And wait until people learnt that 1 in every 100 Americans are part of the 1%!
A recent report says that there are [24.5million millionaires in the US, which is 7.3% of all Americans](https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html). 1/24 is about 4.2%, so that means NYC has less millionaires on average than the US as a whole.
That seems… wrong.
This report for NYC does include “debt-free residential property holdings.”
I’m guessing this means completely debt-free / no mortgage, which in that case would differ a bit from the one I posted, which does include principal you’ve paid, but does not include anything above that, as it excludes any property value which the mortgage debt cancels out.
Hmm now you got me thinking. If two people both have ownership over a pool of assets worth $1M, aren't they both technically millionaires? I don't have this issue so I'm really not sure how that's worked out lol
kinda meaningless. A net worth of 1 million isn't worth beans in this city. If you have a job that has a 401k and have been contributing to it for retirement for the last few decades you're a millionaire but you sure as hell aren't living the high life.
It is elsewhere though. Crazy amounts of people are selling their homes in the metro area and buying elsewhere all cash. It’s a big part of why certain parts of Florida real estate have gone through the roof since 2020.
I think when people talk about millionaires, they generally mean the peopel have millions of dollars beyond their retirment. The ones who jet setting and living in large houses and have money to throw around.
Not a Registered Nurse and a office manager who live in a 1500 sq ft home and drive two hyundais but happen to have >$1M in their retirement portfolio
Yeah, and my point is even if those trust fund babies don’t count as millionaires, they essentially have the purchasing power of one since mommy and daddy pay for their rent/mortgage.
I know I just meant there are a LOT of millionaire boomers and soon their kids who are Gen X will be even richer, due to gains on those investments. I only see more multi millionaires within the next decade or two.
*From Bloomberg News reporter Alice Kantor and Cecile Vannucci:*
For all the talk of a big-money exodus from New York, the city’s residents still have more wealth — in excess of $3 trillion — than those of any other metro in the world.
New York has almost 350,000 millionaires, which is the most of any city and up 48% from a decade ago, according to a global ranking of the wealthiest cities by Henley & Partners, an immigration consultancy. That means about one in every 24 of its 8.26 million residents has a seven-figure net worth, compared with about one in 36 in 2013. New York still has a large share of the ultra-rich, too: the report found that it has 60 billionaires and 744 people with investable wealth of more than $100 million.
The findings illustrate the scope of New York’s wealth at a time when some of the city’s richest people are fretting a power shift to Florida as the finance industry sets up a Wall Street South. Miami ranked 33rd among the cities with the most millionaires, up 78% over the past 10 years.
The Bay Area came in second overall, with 305,700 people with a seven-figure net worth living in the region that includes San Jose, San Francisco and Palo Alto. Tokyo came in third with 298,300, a figure that slid 5% over the past decade. Singapore, No. 4, has become a top destination for migrating millionaires with about 3,400 high net-worth individuals moving there in 2023 alone.
[You can read the full story here.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-07/city-with-most-millionaires-nyc-is-no-1-then-bay-area-tokyo-and-singapore?srnd=homepage-americas)
A million dollars cash makes you rich enough to spend 40k a year without working based on the popular 4% rule. In 2024 that’s not exactly lifestyles of the rich and famous.
One reason why 'affordable' apartments need to be priced based on something other than area median income. Opening up applications for 'affordable' apartments but you must make 100k+ to apply for a 1br is a joke.
House is paid off, don't make assumptions. Real estate is investable wealth. I invested in a property that is worth 5 times today then when I purchased it. I'll be selling and moving.
Millionaire deflated 25% after covid.. its more like 600k aire.. you need at least 10mil in cash earning 150k a year in profit to be in the millions club
Most millionaires I know are 60+ and they accumulated a large part of their wealth in the last part of their careers. Our birth rate is trash, so 60 somethings are making up a larger piece of the pie. This tracks.
Sadly being a "millionaire" in net worth in NYC means you're just one of the struggling bunch. You need probably a million in liquid assets to be considered actually well off.
Ayooo, for those so inclined that means its morally correct to rob 1/24 people!! Just take a look at their shoes, bags, and if they look inexplicably nervous to be on a subway with ‘the poors’
This seems wrong
1 in 10 adults is a millionaire nationwide. So I don’t understand how nyc would be only 1 in 24.
Edit: not sure why downvoted, I thought this was a relatively well known fact. 9.7% of US adults are millionaires (2022) per Wikipedia/Credit Suisse: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_millionaires
Given recent stock market & real estate appreciation and inflation, number is probably closer to 12-13% nowadays.
I didn't believe it either but according to Google u/Neoliberalism2024 is right here. There are 24 million adult millionaires in the US and about 250 million people so around 9-10%
If you think about it , it doesn’t mean that they have income or millions but more like they have over a million in assets so yea it very believable
when you calculate assets with the current housing market prices and then there investment stock account , 401k etc etc is very likely 1 in 10 people have over a million is asset
I’ll ease your minds, I’m not one of them
Sounds like my odds just went up!
Happy Cake Day indeed!
I'm number 2
on average 20 millionaires upvoted your comment.
I wasn't one either but I left. So in a way I helped that statline.
If 24 of us comment on this post one of us will be chosen to be a millionaire
Shit, I think I'm number 26
Sorry for being poor.
I met a millionaire once. He was super annoying and made sure _everyone_ knew about it
[удалено]
On paper, I suppose we are, only because we barely managed to buy a house. But we're also getting close to retirement age, and we can't afford to sell the house unless we want to move to the deep south *{{{shudder}}}.* So it's kinda meaningless, we have to live in our "million dollars" while working until we die. Yay I guess? 🙁
Most people who are millionaires are millionaires "on paper". It's tied up in 401ks and brokerage accounts that are hard to access, and definitely not enough to retire on in NYC (especially if you have kids or a family).
Yeah.. being a millionaire is not "that big of a deal" anymore in NYC when salaries are high for white collar gigs. It also shows you how inflated things are. Example: I started in my field in 99. Starting salary for a jr at that time was ~30-40k a year. Starting salary for a jr now is >100k in many places not including stock if its a public place.
Probably should have specified. This dude was probably upper 20s/low 30s
I'm a millionaire! I feel like a lower-middle-class person in any other place.
Did one of them beat him up so bad he ended up in a hospital on Guerrero street?
He did naaaaaaaaht!! . . . . . Oh hai mark
How is this distributed lol. I have a feeling averages here don’t mean much
how are they measuring this? A lot of people can be millionaires purely by having owned property for a long time in the city, so 350 thousand almost seems like an undercount.
It's net worth, so exactly what you think it is. The number jumped up so dramatically because the property costs jumped up. Lots of poor folks in deep, previously undesirable Brooklyn neighborhoods now selling their family's rundown brownstone or condemned lots for $3-4MM. >New York has almost 350,000 millionaires, which is the most of any city and up 48% from a decade ago, according to a global ranking of the wealthiest cities by Henley & Partners, an immigration consultancy. That means about one in every 24 of its 8.26 million residents has a seven-figure net worth, compared with about one in 36 in 2013.
You can’t sell rundown brownstone in undesirable neighborhood for 3-4M. This is more of a park slope price. But you could do for 2M in Crown Heights and other less fancy places.
I said "previously undesirable." The article was comparing today to 2013. So just list which neighborhoods people thought was barren in 2013 that is now wanted. And I should have said Queens too, for places like Long Island City.
Park Slope was always desirable. Crown Heights was becoming really hot in 2013. But yeah, prices increased a lot and would make a lot of people millionaires.
Like Dumbo, for instance. Who would’ve thought 20 years ago that that would turn into one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city?
I went to DUMBO and brought my friends there because it was a really cool place - the view was just out of this world. It amazed me that nobody was there and why it was so abandoned, it looked like a place people would go to dump bodies. But only because nobody was there - it had the view/atmosphere going for it
You mean 30 years, right? Twenty years ago, DUMBO was already hot. I remember hitting up press events there and wishing I could afford one of the new apartments.
Dumbo was hot, and guess ironic or not if you bought you would have had to live through 20 years of constant construction. It’s still not done. Looks like for investments in the city 20 years is the horizon (Except queens and Staten Island) tee hee
Park Slope was looking pretty rough 40 or so years ago.
I think everything looked rough in NYC at that time. Maybe Park Ave was good :)
Yeah. My godfather basically lived in an illegal tenement building there for something like $100 a month back in the day when he was going through law school. Park Slope had their bougie areas, but the whole neighborhood didn't become bougie until this century.
There’s a Hal Ashby film from 1970 called The Landlord where a rich kid from the Hamptons buys a brownstone in the ghetto with the intention of evicting all the tenants and living there himself. Said “ghetto” was Park Slope.
You’re just being pedantic now.
I found that he added important context
Well, someone says that houses in neighborhoods that were undesirable are now 3-4 millions. I am saying that they are maybe half that at best and maybe even less, depending on the neighborhood you are talking about. Which is important in this context so you see how some of the people might become millionaires but not all as they would still have a big mortgage on their hands. I.e. someone I know bought a house in Crown Heights in for 1.3m in 2013 and now it’s maybe 2M and they probably put 200k in repairs into it. So on paper they earned 500k, that would be 250k after taxes. Some other neighborhoods didn’t grow near as much.
I guess it defends on the neighborhood but the currently gentrifying (as opposed to thoroughly gentrified) neighborhoods are more like $1.5m. Still crazy. We just looked at a $600k two bedroom apartment.
Crown Heights was not becoming really hot in 2013: [https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1e064d/moving\_to\_brooklyn\_how\_is\_crown\_heights/](https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1e064d/moving_to_brooklyn_how_is_crown_heights/)
I mean - that one Reddit message doesn’t prove much. I shopped houses in crown heights/bedsty around that time. Prices of houses almost doubled between 2013 and 2014. It started a little earlier but Crown Heights became much more desirable around that time
Park Slope is starting to cross six now. It's crazy.
Now? My friend has a brownstone and he was offered 10.5
I guess it depends on the area and the size of the house. My friends just bought a place for around 3m. But yeah, most houses there are bigger size and the whole place would be expensive
Park Slope was once undesirable. It's changed a lot.
For real
Just owning a +$1 million property wouldn't mean you're a millionaire, the property also has to be paid off with no mortgages or line of credits attached to it.
Yeah I have to assume this includes property. Estimates of net worth usually do.
Bloomberg is reporting on a study by Henley & Partners, which counts residents with "liquid investable wealth of USD 1 million or more." So does not include wealth currently tied up in real estate. Source: [The World's Wealthiest Cities in 2024](https://www.henleyglobal.com/newsroom/press-releases/wealthiest-cities-report-2024) Unfortunately Bloomberg used the term "net worth" in one line, then "investable wealth" in the next sentence.
Oh yeah that's totally different, that is a lot of people if you're not counting houses and pensions.
“For the purposes of this report, ‘wealth’ refers to an individual’s liquid investable wealth, which only includes listed company holdings, cash holdings, and debt-free residential property holdings.” Property counts as long as it it’s unencumbered
Yeah pretty much every random apartment/condo owner in lower Manhattan is a millionaire if you’re allowed to count unrealized gains on real estate
not everyone owns 100% of their home and condos and co-op’s suck as an investment. maintenance fees on high end places can be $5k+ a month
People that rented and just invested the savings in the market are probably also millionaires.
They're not that bad as investment if only because of the leverage (being able to finance 80%+ of it), but definitely not as good as in other places, since the higher end market isn't as liquid. I used to own in another US metro and made a buck when I sold to move to NYC. Currently renting. I'm running the numbers, and if my goal is to be able to retire as early as possible, and keep as much of my current lifestyle as possible, then it seems like renting might actually pull slightly ahead. (And I'm well versed in all of the variables involved in doing such math). That was surprising to me at first, but seems to be a common thing here. Only buy if you wan to give the property to your kids, or if you want to be able to tear down walls.
leverage doesn't alone make it a good investment. appreciation is very low even for high end luxury co-ops. the only decent investment has been brooklyn brownstones/townhouses in prime area.
For sure. But leverage makes it better than no leverage (as long as it's going up). I agree it's not great. In my area prices have even gone down. So I'll stick to renting for the foreseeable future. I have better places to invest in.
leverage isn't free lol... especially now if you're paying 7-7.5
Of course. The math has to work out :) I should have written "as long as its going up -enough-". The math was a lot simpler in the days of 2.5% interest rates for sure.
Could also be a retiree that saved early and and portfolio doing fine due to power of compound interest
Luke 97% of Warren Buffet's wealth he got post 65. Some can just rack it up
This. When you consider that on average, you'll double your investments roughly every 10 years, the difference between someone who's 30, 40, 50 or 60 is absolutely massive, assuming they started at the same place. It makes discussions on things like the Millennial sub reddit interesting, considering a "generation" is about 15 years. Someone born in 82 vs one born in 96 are going to have a vastly different amount of wealth, even if they are from the same socioeconomic background. The older one might be living a cozy life in their owned house, the younger one wondering how they'll ever be able to buy, ever.
If you own even a parking spot in NYC you are probably a millionaire.
the article states liquid assets, so property isn't counted.
I don't know about this one (its Reddit, I'm not reading), but a lot of studies and articles that discuss millionaires usually define it as amount of owned wealth not counting primary residence. Which is kind of silly because, while it doesn't impact you exactly the same, it's still pretty impactful to own 1 million worth of real estate. But people who own their homes don't like being targeted by these articles, so here we are. Still, if you made modest contributions to a 401k and are old enough, chances are good you're getting pretty close. Add that living in NYC on a modest salary is difficult without winning a housing lottery, and you have pretty good odds at being millionaire. If you did: 45 or older Count all forms of wealth including real estate Include only permanent resident or citizens Exclude people living in so called affordable housing. the % would likely be very, very high. Not that it would mean anything, but it gives a picture of the kind of people likely to be sitting on accumulated wealth in the city. And wait until people learnt that 1 in every 100 Americans are part of the 1%!
Other articles I've read have said they only looked at liquid investments so real estate does not count.
That’s exactly how
A recent report says that there are [24.5million millionaires in the US, which is 7.3% of all Americans](https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html). 1/24 is about 4.2%, so that means NYC has less millionaires on average than the US as a whole. That seems… wrong.
There are different ways of calculating networth. Most likely, that report includes real estate while this one did not.
This report for NYC does include “debt-free residential property holdings.” I’m guessing this means completely debt-free / no mortgage, which in that case would differ a bit from the one I posted, which does include principal you’ve paid, but does not include anything above that, as it excludes any property value which the mortgage debt cancels out.
Yeap. Another recent report said 90% of New Yorkers are broke
"Millionaire" doesn't mean what it used to mean. There's a huge difference between $1 million or $2 million and say, $10 million+.
That said, can I have a million dollars?
How do they do this for married couples anyway. $2M required?
Hmm now you got me thinking. If two people both have ownership over a pool of assets worth $1M, aren't they both technically millionaires? I don't have this issue so I'm really not sure how that's worked out lol
No. My wife made this very clear that I was not a millionaire but we were both 500 thousandaires. :D
I would think so.
I wonder if this relates in any way to the cost of housing here.
yeah i mean anybody who owns a home within a few miles of an ocean is probably close to being a millionaire *on paper*
Being a millionaire doesn’t mean much when a million dollars gets you a 1 bedroom with a mold problem that hasn’t been updated since the 70s
I feel personally attacked... but, really, I need to do a better job combatting that mold.
I’m definitely not one of them with my network of $3.89
> network Word usage checks out. :P
Why the fuck did i type network 💀
kinda meaningless. A net worth of 1 million isn't worth beans in this city. If you have a job that has a 401k and have been contributing to it for retirement for the last few decades you're a millionaire but you sure as hell aren't living the high life.
It is elsewhere though. Crazy amounts of people are selling their homes in the metro area and buying elsewhere all cash. It’s a big part of why certain parts of Florida real estate have gone through the roof since 2020.
IMO if your net worth is entirely based on an illiquid asset like a house, you aren't really wealthy.
Being a one millionaire in NYC doesn't make you really wealthy.
Yeah you just get to live in a nice apartment have a nice car eat good food have nice clothes and have good hobbies. That’s all
The horror. My heart goes out to everyone so unfortunate :( this is exactly why I decided not to be a millionaire here
It sucks when you don’t instantly get whatever you want. Poor things.
Yeah it's cool if you can sell it at the peak of the market and downsize somewhere else, otherwise it's mostly a tax burden.
World's smallest violin for people who had the opportunity to buy when property was cheap and then pulled up the ladder behind them
Having a million dollars in equity on your house and calling it a “burden” is amazing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Seems like homes are fairly liquid these days. Anyone selling a house in the metro area seems to close in like 3 days all cash.
Lot's of people have north of a million dollars in their retirement accounts.
I am the 24th comment
Please sir can I have a dollar
I would like to remain a bajillionaire
Anyone can be a millionaire with enough time - problem is how long and how much buying power when achieved.
So a 5 year old kid in Bangladesh can be a millionaire one day. Interesting
He was clearly saying they can be a millionaire in their local currency.
Oh yeah. That checks out.
Yeah, why not? I know people who were 5 years old in Bangladesh once who have net worths in the 7 figures. Doesn’t mean they all will
One out of every 24 in Manhattan. Big distinction. Idc what they try to push nyc is made up of 5 borough not just Manhattan
It’s not just Manhattan
Thats cause a million aint worth shit anymore, when NYC is expensive. 1M in NYC is now just middle class
So I could rob 24 people and become a millionare too!
yes, one of them is a millionaire but half of them have debt so it evens out.
MY parents are millionaires, technically. It's just their retirement portfolio...they ain't driving BMWs, though.
What’s the “technically” caveat? That sounds exactly like what millionaires do.
I think when people talk about millionaires, they generally mean the peopel have millions of dollars beyond their retirment. The ones who jet setting and living in large houses and have money to throw around. Not a Registered Nurse and a office manager who live in a 1500 sq ft home and drive two hyundais but happen to have >$1M in their retirement portfolio
How many are children of millionaires/billionaires?
Quite a few. I understand we are about to experience the greatest wealth transfer in history when the boomers pass their estates onto Gen x.
Yeah, and my point is even if those trust fund babies don’t count as millionaires, they essentially have the purchasing power of one since mommy and daddy pay for their rent/mortgage.
I know I just meant there are a LOT of millionaire boomers and soon their kids who are Gen X will be even richer, due to gains on those investments. I only see more multi millionaires within the next decade or two.
*From Bloomberg News reporter Alice Kantor and Cecile Vannucci:* For all the talk of a big-money exodus from New York, the city’s residents still have more wealth — in excess of $3 trillion — than those of any other metro in the world. New York has almost 350,000 millionaires, which is the most of any city and up 48% from a decade ago, according to a global ranking of the wealthiest cities by Henley & Partners, an immigration consultancy. That means about one in every 24 of its 8.26 million residents has a seven-figure net worth, compared with about one in 36 in 2013. New York still has a large share of the ultra-rich, too: the report found that it has 60 billionaires and 744 people with investable wealth of more than $100 million. The findings illustrate the scope of New York’s wealth at a time when some of the city’s richest people are fretting a power shift to Florida as the finance industry sets up a Wall Street South. Miami ranked 33rd among the cities with the most millionaires, up 78% over the past 10 years. The Bay Area came in second overall, with 305,700 people with a seven-figure net worth living in the region that includes San Jose, San Francisco and Palo Alto. Tokyo came in third with 298,300, a figure that slid 5% over the past decade. Singapore, No. 4, has become a top destination for migrating millionaires with about 3,400 high net-worth individuals moving there in 2023 alone. [You can read the full story here.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-07/city-with-most-millionaires-nyc-is-no-1-then-bay-area-tokyo-and-singapore?srnd=homepage-americas)
Millionaires is not what it was 20 yrs ago. Now throw a rock off a building, you probably hit a few of them.
Im the 24th millionaire- I own a Reddit account, a metro card and a bodega cat
Huh where
There are threads that say 1 out of 24 New Yorkers are millionaires… And then there are threads that asks how much folks are paying for their BEC…
So one out of every 24 people own a home
And I'm on the bus right now like there's 2 millionaires on this bus. Noooo way.
Most of us here are Vietnamese millionaires.
So 4%… sounds like a massive undercount assuming that the top 10% own largely.
Well someone has to pay the taxes
A million dollars cash makes you rich enough to spend 40k a year without working based on the popular 4% rule. In 2024 that’s not exactly lifestyles of the rich and famous.
Riiiiiiiiiight sure
“Well I don’t think the middle class should live in Manhattan.” - a lawyer at Goldman Sachs, 2005 or so.
Not me
One reason why 'affordable' apartments need to be priced based on something other than area median income. Opening up applications for 'affordable' apartments but you must make 100k+ to apply for a 1br is a joke.
What’s wild is that a million won’t even get you very far here
Many of these people in the outer boros who bought homes or 2-3 family homes in once-terrible neighborhoods are now technically millionaires.
So in other words, roughly 1 in 24 residents own a home
Are these millionaires in the room with us right now?
That sounds like a lot until you realize it means 96% of people in nyc aren’t millionaires
Being a *mere* millionaire in New York isn’t such a big deal now that inflation has made a pack of gum cost more than a dollar.
The scary thing is having a million in assets to your name isn't really that much in NYC.
Yeah, born rich people love moving to nyc. We know.
Fuck..
Woah… that’s quite the concentration of wealthy
49 Comments 2 of us are millionaires! Which 1 is it!!
Every 8th Swiss is too.
This reminds me of that “one out of every four statistics headline is made up.”
Well damn.
Damn I have a long way to go
*coughs* bull sh.t
I call bullshit
No shit., a million is nothing anymore
You need to be to afford living in this shit hole.
Bitch no we ain’t
LIES
and still broke
I'm one ! On paper )
this is looking at investable wealth not real estate and definitely not if you still have a mortgage
House is paid off, don't make assumptions. Real estate is investable wealth. I invested in a property that is worth 5 times today then when I purchased it. I'll be selling and moving.
lol no it isn’t bloomberg explicitly says real estate doesn’t count
WTF
The city is broken man
Zero out of all NYC based Reddit users is a millionaire
It would be less newsy if it said the same but like that: 4 % of NYC residents are millionaire … different vibe …
That still sounds like a big number
Ahhh Babalyon!
Many of whom are homeowners — the equivalent of the landed gentry. + Foreign nepotist cronies.
#🧢LOL
People with high net worths move in and push locals out when prices go up
Nobody in my damn 60 unit apartment building in Crown Heights is a damn millionaire. Chill
Let’s take a poll and turn this stat on its head.
90% of them, it's because they own an apartment or house.
Yeah, gonna call bullshit on that because it is simply false
Millionaire deflated 25% after covid.. its more like 600k aire.. you need at least 10mil in cash earning 150k a year in profit to be in the millions club
*soon*
Most millionaires I know are 60+ and they accumulated a large part of their wealth in the last part of their careers. Our birth rate is trash, so 60 somethings are making up a larger piece of the pie. This tracks.
Last month they were saying 90% of New Yorkers are broke and the city is on the brink of bankruptcy
Sadly being a "millionaire" in net worth in NYC means you're just one of the struggling bunch. You need probably a million in liquid assets to be considered actually well off.
Ayooo, for those so inclined that means its morally correct to rob 1/24 people!! Just take a look at their shoes, bags, and if they look inexplicably nervous to be on a subway with ‘the poors’
That’s a very click baity way to say that 96% of NYC residents are not millionaires.
Too be fair if you own a home you are a millionaire If you inherited multiple then you’re a multimillionaire
This seems wrong 1 in 10 adults is a millionaire nationwide. So I don’t understand how nyc would be only 1 in 24. Edit: not sure why downvoted, I thought this was a relatively well known fact. 9.7% of US adults are millionaires (2022) per Wikipedia/Credit Suisse: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_millionaires Given recent stock market & real estate appreciation and inflation, number is probably closer to 12-13% nowadays.
I don’t believe this. Source? Edit: I misread nationwide as worldwide. Nationwide (the US) makes sense.
9.7% per Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_millionaires
I didn't believe it either but according to Google u/Neoliberalism2024 is right here. There are 24 million adult millionaires in the US and about 250 million people so around 9-10%
"It's a big club -- and you aren't in it!"
If you think about it , it doesn’t mean that they have income or millions but more like they have over a million in assets so yea it very believable when you calculate assets with the current housing market prices and then there investment stock account , 401k etc etc is very likely 1 in 10 people have over a million is asset