Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Remember that real estate is about three things: location, location, and location. You bribe your way into tax abatements for luxury condos basically anywhere, but there's currently no way to bribe someone to move Central Park, the museums and arts centers and all the restaurants and other New-York-specific stuff that actually attracts people to within a few blocks of your cheap-tax-rate tower in Wyoming.


You're not being fair to his or her question.

Yes, most cities cannot attract billionaires like New York. But London or Hong Kong can. And London has been much more successful at it than New York lately.

Fun fact: the states with the most billionaires per capita are... Oklahoma, Oregon, and Ohio. New York comes in at #4.


Hmm, your fun fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_numb...) is fun, I agree, but also misleading.

According to the above link, Oklahoma has 5 billionaires, Oregon has 2, Ohio has 4. New York, at #4 per capita, has 88; California has 111. The "surprise" is mostly due to low counts.

For any process (like wealth) with large extremes, if you subdivide it into bins, you are going to get local extrema just due to low counts. The only mildly informative thing is Oklahoma (oil and gas). Ohio is a few elderly (ages 77, 74, 70) manufacturing folks -- their count seems to have dipped to 3, according to http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:static_sear..., which would remove Ohio from the top 3 per capita.


> the states with the most billionaires per capita are... Oklahoma, Oregon, and Ohio. New York comes in at #4.

In residence, perhaps.

Yet how many own a pied-à-terre in New York, while residing primarily elsewhere?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: