# Los Angeles County home to more millionaires



## pwright1 (Jun 1, 2003)

...than any other county in U.S. 
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news.../millionaires/


----------



## DarkLite (Dec 31, 2004)

*I find that shocking since I had always percieved New York City (Manhattan) to be home of the most millionaires, or is it because LA County covers a much larger area than Manhattan Burough?*


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

joaquin said:


> *or is it because LA County covers a much larger area than Manhattan Burough?*


Yes I think that is correct.


----------



## ChrisLA (Sep 11, 2002)

^
To answer your question LA county has 10 million residents, Manhattan has approx. 1.5 million.


----------



## zachus22 (Dec 4, 2006)

Per capita numbers would be more telling


----------



## Booyashako (Sep 11, 2002)

You're a millionaire already if your home is worth over a $million, which in LA county is not rare (even if the people living in them bought them for $200k a decade ago). That, plus all the rich artists/celebrities, it's no surprise. If we were talking billionaires, then that's a whole other story and the honour would most likely go to the county that embodies NYC.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

actually, the list doesnt consider equity form real estate when they made this list. Also, i think the LA area had a couple more billionaires than NYC if im not mistaken.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

I'd be much more surprised if it DIDN'T have more millionaires. It has about twice as many people as any other county. It covers well over 4,000 sq miles, or over 10,000 sq. km's.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

So how many Millionaires are in the Los Angeles county? That link on the first post does not work.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

15


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

lol


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

Millionaire households in 2005: net worth(excluding primary residence), not yearly income

1.LA Co.(Los Angeles)-262,800
2.Cook Co.(Chicago)-167,873
3.Orange Co.-113,299
4.Maricopa Co.(Phoenix)-106,210
5.San Diego Co.-100,030
6.Harris Co.(Houston)-95,593
7.Nassau Co.-78,816
8.Santa Clara Co.(San Jose)-75,371
9.Palm Beach Co.-69,871
10.Middlesex Co.(Cambridge)-67,552
11.Suffolk Co.-66,683
12.King Co.(Seattle)-65,536
13.NY Co.(Manhattan)-62,773

Link:http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/03/28/business/20060328_RICH_GRAPHIC.html


----------



## CITYofDREAMS (Jan 20, 2007)

^^ So LA and OC combined 376,099 WOW!!


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

Ok this is an interesting article about the growth of Millionaires in NYC...


*For rich kids, it's only money*


By: Andrew Marks
Published: April 1, 2007

Investing and promptly losing $60,000 on a startup company doesn't show up on many college student resumes. But then, not everyone is as rich as Gianni Martire. 

The 23-year-old also had the wherewithal to recently leave a six-figure job at Merrill Lynch to co-found CollegeHotlist.com, a MySpace-style personal networking Web site. 

"No matter what I do with these business ventures, I'm going to be comfortable, money-wise," points out Mr. Martire, whose immigrant parents struck gold in Manhattan real estate. "Losing all that money was a great learning experience. I absorbed my lesson, and I went on to the next thing." 

Mr. Martire belongs to a rapidly expanding class of younger New Yorkers for whom dropping $60,000 on a business venture or $100,000 on a Maserati requires no sacrifice.

*New York has a higher concentration of wealth than almost anywhere else in the country — only California has more residents with non-real estate assets of $1 million or more — and the number of wealthy New Yorkers has been on the rise over the past five years.* Most of that growth is attributable to the incredible incomes on Wall Street, particularly in hedge funds and private equity.

*The number of people with investable assets of more than $1 million in New York City has increased to 241,000 from 193,000 in the past five years*, says Leslie Mandel, who maintains The Rich List, a direct-mailing service. "Most of them, nearly 80%, are in the financial industry, with the rest split among the real estate industry, entrepreneurs and people with inherited wealth," she says.

Statistical evidence is hard to come by when trying to parse those numbers according to age, *but those who make their living surveying and working for the city's affluent say that people who are 35 and under make up an ever-larger proportion of the wealthy in New York.*

"The growth has been exponential," says Adam Herz, president of hedge fund search firm Hunter Advisors Corp. "Five years ago, there were a few guys under 35 making $5 million or more. Now we're in the high hundreds, maybe even thousands. Goldman Sachs alone must have 100 people who fit that profile."

Because the city's younger wealthy demographic is dominated by hedge fund and other Wall Street professionals, the prevailing trope among this group is less a "lifestyles of the rich and famous" than one of the rich and very busy.

"A lot of these people spend relatively little of the money they're making," says Mr. Herz. "When you're making $5 million or more a year, it's hard to spend it when you're working so much, even if you do rent a jet to go to Las Vegas for the weekend." 

But when these highfliers spend, they are much freer with their money than baby boomers. "They're into enjoying their money, and don't tend to worry about spending it," says Russ Prince, president of Prince & Associates, a research and consulting firm that focuses on the wealthy. 

"I just had dinner with a young client who thought nothing of dropping $40,000 for a dinner for eight at Nobu," recalls Mr. Prince, who's written many books on advising wealthy clients. "Once you get old enough to have a family and kids, even if you're talking about someone with $10 million or $20 million — they're less willing to throw it away like that."

The wealthy Gen X-ers have helped spawn a mini-industry of concierge-type services in the city, from private jet charters to consultants who teach their clients how to become high-end collectors of art or fine wines. 

"That's a big difference between younger and older money," says Mr. Prince. "I'm often essentially a wealth coach to younger people. They've got all this money, but they don't know how to go about getting the things they want."


*Willing to pay for assistance*

The majority of Mr. Prince's younger clients want someone to take care of the nonwork parts of their lives and are willing to spend heavily for it. 

Tom Henske, a partner with financial adviser Lenox Advisors Inc., agrees that the prevailing attitude among his younger clients, whose net worth ranges from $5 million on up to $50 million, is "I put in long hours at work, and I want to be able to enjoy and maximize my free time." A do-it-yourself mentality is much more prevalent among wealthy people in their 40s and 50s, he notes.

And younger wealthy people are more than willing to spend in order to save themselves time. If that means paying $8,000 to take a helicopter to the Hamptons instead of spending three hours in traffic, they'll do it without a thought, says Mr. Henske. "We're a beneficiary of that mentality, too," he adds, noting that the number of his younger clients has doubled in the past five years.

The wealthy Gen X-ers have a much higher appetite for risking their money than did earlier generations. "Younger people are much more willing to invest their money in a new idea," says Mr. Henske. "A lot of them come from Wall Street, and they're accustomed to taking risks. It is fun for them in a way it's not for my older clients." 

But self-indulgence doesn't define everyone. "Once you make people in our age group aware of opportunities to get involved, they're really into it," says Lauren Silverman, a vice president of real estate private equity at a major investment bank. She says Mount Sinai Hospital's young advisory board, which she chairs, has grown to 500 members from only 30 six years ago. The advisory board is involved with fund-raising activities for the hospital.


*Giving back to community*

Kipton Cronkite is one of those particularly involved rich young New Yorkers. At 32, the grandson of Walter Cronkite heads global client services at a major bank and runs his own company, Kiptonart.com, which introduces new collectors to the art world and offers exposure to emerging artists who have yet to land a gallery show. He also finds the time to serve on the acquisitions committee at the Whitney Museum, the young advisory board at Mount Sinai and the Louvre's young advisers committee.

"Most of my friends are involved with charitable or arts causes," Comments Mr. Cronkite. "They feel it's important to use their wealth and positions to help give back to the community."

That kind of commitment, notes Mr. Cronkite, is more difficult for the Wall Street crowd. "It's a challenge for them just to get out of work and make it to an event on time."

His observation is echoed by Taij Moteelall, the executive director of Resource Generation, a Manhattan-based organization that helps young people become involved in philanthropy. While New York City represents its largest constituency — 200 members out of a nationwide membership of 1,000 — none of its city members come from the finance industry. 

"The hedge funds are an untapped resource," Ms. Moteelall says.

Mr. Martire, who is now devoting energies to his new venture, as well as to a charitable foundation he and his sister have set up with their family's money, is more blunt about it. 

"Too many guys I know are content to party and live it up," says Mr. Martire, who freely admits to enjoying the perks of wealth, from the big Mercedes he drives and the two-bedroom apartment he's buying overlooking Union Square to the occasional weekend jaunt with a date to Paris. "I'd like to see more of us with less of a sense of entitlement, and more of a sense of responsibility."


Entire contents © 2007 Crain Communications, Inc.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

But also the county with the highest concentration of poor!!!! It has a bad income inequality!  Other US cities may have less millionaires but also less poverty!


----------



## itsmevishal2k4 (Oct 30, 2006)

anyone wanna throw me some of that? :drunk::goodnight:


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

cello1974 said:


> But also the county with the highest concentration of poor!!!! It has a bad income inequality!  Other US cities may have less millionaires but also less poverty!


The income inequality is BECAUSE OF not in spite of social programs. If there was no social housing in Manhattan, there would be little income inequality. Your "solution" to inequality would just force all the poor people to live far from their employment.


----------



## ilcapo (Jan 5, 2007)

i really dont think this is something special that should be celebrated.. this just shows how segregated LA is.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

ilcapo said:


> i really dont think this is something special that should be celebrated.. this just shows how segregated LA is.


What is wrong with having Millionaires in your city? It is actually a good thing. Yeah some people might not afford some of those expensive homes but the city seems healthy. You want to know of a worst segregated city, look at what happend to Detroit. That is the opposite of Los Angeles. It was completely abandon by the Rich and the Middle Class for the suburbs. Now those people who left don't want to have any relationship with the city of Detroit. Economically that is not good. Los Angeles keeps atracting people and immigrants as well as these rich folks. That is a healthy city in my book. 

Now when it comes to the raising housing cost in the poor, working class and middle class neighborhoods, that is a problem that needs to be address. Which the city of NYC is addressing at the moment.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

ilcapo said:


> i really dont think this is something special that should be celebrated.. this just shows how segregated LA is.


:applause:


----------



## Paddington (Mar 30, 2006)

LA County is probably also home to the highest number of poor people, because it's the biggest county, and the next biggest one (Cook) is half the size. The list means nothing.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

I wouldn't be surprised if there are alot of wealthy Angelenos. But I think most of the elite are in the entertainment field.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

its interesting that when New York City is tops in something, the size issue never comes up. NYC is twice the size of the next biggest city. The Anti LA sentiment here is overwhelming sometimes.


----------



## CITYofDREAMS (Jan 20, 2007)

^^ I agree with you... there is a very strong anti LA feeling in many of these forums. I asked myself why??? I have come to the conclusion that our city is definetely envied. For such a young city, LA is over accomplished, very popular and still aspiring to bigger and better things. Is it perfect? by no means. The city has a many issues and it's trying to deal with them now. 
A lot of these feelings just prove what the Encyclopedia Brittanica says about Los Angeles and that one of our forumer, Klamedia carries as his signature... “*Perhaps no city in modern times has been so universally envied, imitated, ridiculed, and, because of what it may portend, feared.” *Encyclopedia Britannica, 2000


----------



## MrMenhem (Apr 11, 2007)

Whats even more interesting is that theres a constant comparison of approx 1/5 of one city(manhattan) to a county consisting of 88 cities. If we're gonna compare apples to apples, at least compare the city proper or the greater metropolitan areas. I noticed in these forums people have a tendency to do that. When they use NYC as a comparison they only tend to use Manhattan. And in the case of LA, they tend to use the entire county of 88 cities.
1/5 to 88. Lets be reasonable here......



LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> its interesting that when New York City is tops in something, the size issue never comes up. NYC is twice the size of the next biggest city. The Anti LA sentiment here is overwhelming sometimes.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Can someone say Hollywood? 

No, that's wrong. LA overall is a very rich city, in other industries as well.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

ilcapo said:


> i really dont think this is something special that should be celebrated.. this just shows how segregated LA is.


This forum is rapidly becoming the place to brag about being filthily rich. Forbes, FT etc all have website fora too. Kindly go there.
Rich people are often extremely boring, I know I live in such an area


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

CITYofDREAMS said:


> ^^ I agree with you... there is a very strong anti LA feeling in many of these forums. I asked myself why??? I have come to the conclusion that our city is definetely envied. For such a young city, LA is over accomplished, very popular and still aspiring to bigger and better things. Is it perfect? by no means. The city has a many issues and it's trying to deal with them now.
> A lot of these feelings just prove what the Encyclopedia Brittanica says about Los Angeles and that one of our forumer, Klamedia carries as his signature... “*Perhaps no city in modern times has been so universally envied, imitated, ridiculed, and, because of what it may portend, feared.” *Encyclopedia Britannica, 2000


I think LA's problems are more obvious than in other cities perhaps. Everyone knows the pictures of gangs in the slums, air pollution covering the city, earthquakes, fires, overcrowded streets and highways, crime, poverty. Either other US cities know how to hide it better or LA is really worse,...


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Oh, please. Yes, LA has a gang problem but take a look at the slums in the Midwest and Northeast, particularly Detroit and Philadelphia. Earthquakes? Fires? Give me a break. I'd rather have those over humid weather, hurricanes, and tornados. Overcrowded streets? LOL, most people on here would definitely argue that! Overcrowded highways? Take a look at Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas. Crime? LA is the second safest big city in the US after NYC. Poverty? LA has the highest concentration of homeless in the US. Could it be that you're less likely to freeze to death in the cold here? hno:

The ignorance towards Los Angeles continues...


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

I really feel bad for my city because some people really don't have a clue about Los Angeles. They just go on with their ignorance, delusion, stereotypes, and misconceptions, never bothering to learn the real facts.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

Westsidelife said:


> I really feel bad for my city because some people really don't have a clue about Los Angeles. They just go on with their ignorance, delusion, stereotypes, and misconceptions, never bothering to learn the real facts.


Tell it to American media who pass that image of LA over here in Europe!!!!


----------



## carfentanyl (May 14, 2003)

Westsidelife said:


> The ignorance towards Los Angeles continues...


Basically that's because most people see the L.A.-L.B.-S.A. metropolitan area as the city of Los Angeles. The picture of L.A. is sold to the world as a city of 13 million, not as a city of 4 million. 

When people see MS-13 or 18th Street gangs in East-L.A. or Piru gangs in Compton, they think of L.A.. While actually activities of these gangs will not be in the crime figures of the city of L.A. itsself. 

When you point out that Los Angeles is among the safest of the big cities you take figures of the city itsself, not the county. But American people like to think of cities in terms of metropolitan areas, except when it turns out badly like in this case, when it comes to murders. Then all of a sudden L.A. is just a city of 4 million and not the big metropolis of 13 million.

And besides, the city of L.A. is 28th out of 68 when it comes to the murder rate in cities of over 250,000. Not almost last like you implied. And other small cities in Los Angeles county are among the most murderous, like Compton, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Inglewood.

So I think people have a good point when they say Los Angeles is a relatively dangerous city. They just see L.A. as how it's sold to the world, a big metropolis that also embodies Beverly Hills, West-Hollywood and Disneyland which are actually all not part of the city of L.A.


----------



## CITYofDREAMS (Jan 20, 2007)

cello1974 said:


> I think LA's problems are more obvious than in other cities perhaps. Everyone knows the pictures of gangs in the slums, air pollution covering the city, earthquakes, fires, overcrowded streets and highways, crime, poverty. Either other US cities know how to hide it better or LA is really worse,...


In my comment I mentoned that LA had many issues and is dealing with them... some succesfully and some not... However with all the problems that the area has as you just outlined, for LA to have become what it is, a top and one of the most influencial global city on the planet with one of the largest city economy in the world while dealing with all of these issues, then the city deserves a lot more credit than it's given.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

carfentanyl said:


> Basically that's because most people see the L.A.-L.B.-S.A. metropolitan area as the city of Los Angeles. The picture of L.A. is sold to the world as a city of 13 million, not as a city of 4 million.
> 
> When people see MS-13 or 18th Street gangs in East-L.A. or Piru gangs in Compton, they think of L.A.. While actually activities of these gangs will not be in the crime figures of the city of L.A. itsself.
> 
> ...


I don't consider Disneyland to be part of LA. Nor do I consider Laguna Beach. Those are in the LA metro but not in LA County itself. Plus, they are completely different from the LA vibe. But I do believe that Beverly Hills and West Hollywood should be seen as part of LA because they are so ingrained in the LA culture. The thing you have to remember is that Los Angeles is a sprawling megalopolis. It's hard to differentiate between city and suburb. The City of Beverly Hills and the City of West Hollywood are *completely surround by the City of LA*. Both are IN Los Angeles but not OF Los Angeles. There's a huge difference between considering that part of Los Angeles (notice I'm not specifying whether LA City or LA County) than taking the crime figures of LA _City_, NOT County. You want to consider the entire LA County? Yes, it moves down the list. But the fact is, LA City is the second safest big city in the US. PERIOD.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

cello1974 said:


> I think LA's problems are more obvious than in other cities perhaps. Everyone knows the pictures of gangs in the slums, air pollution covering the city, earthquakes, fires, overcrowded streets and highways, crime, poverty. Either other US cities know how to hide it better or LA is really worse,...



The reality and the overall picture of Los Angeles County: 60.1% of all people are leading comfortable lives(doing ok), 22% are poor and 17.9% are in poverty according to 2000 census data. Link: http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/home.aspx
Create a report for yourself, it's really cool.

You have to read this: http://www.scag.ca.gov/sotr/

I wish every metropolitan area in the US and the world made such a report every year.

Los Angeles Metropolitan Area 2005 report card:
Employment: B
Income: C
Housing: D
Mobility: F
Air Quality: C
Education: D
Salary: B


----------



## carfentanyl (May 14, 2003)

Westsidelife said:


> IBut the fact is, LA City is the second safest big city in the US. PERIOD.


In a list of two yeah. Honolulu for example is literally ten times safer than LA City when it comes to murder rate. The city is 28th out of 68, which is ofcourse not that bad.


----------



## MrMenhem (Apr 11, 2007)

If youre going to take into account neighboring cities to the city of LA i.e. Beverly hills, west hollywood, then you should be taking into account other neighboring cities in LA county as well. Its not fair to only take them into consideration when they help your cause in proving a point. And LA city is not that hard to differentiate between the other 87 cities in LA county. Each city has its own mayor and has its own police force. So if youre driving in LA county and it says CITY OF TORRANCE PD, chances are youre NOT in LA city..........And youre right Disneyland and Laguna beach are in the OC.
Just so people understand. LA City is one of 88 cities in LA county which is a huge chunk of the greater LA metro. Also, if youre going to use only LA city to talk about the crime rate, then do so with other questions at hand as well such as with the original question of millionaires. Be consistent!



Westsidelife said:


> I don't consider Disneyland to be part of LA. Nor do I consider Laguna Beach. Those are in the LA metro but not in LA County itself. Plus, they are completely different from the LA vibe. But I do believe that Beverly Hills and West Hollywood should be seen as part of LA because they are so ingrained in the LA culture. The thing you have to remember is that Los Angeles is a sprawling megalopolis. It's hard to differentiate between city and suburb. The City of Beverly Hills and the City of West Hollywood are *completely surround by the City of LA*. Both are IN Los Angeles but not OF Los Angeles. There's a huge difference between considering that part of Los Angeles (notice I'm not specifying whether LA City or LA County) than taking the crime figures of LA _City_, NOT County. You want to consider the entire LA County? Yes, it moves down the list. But the fact is, LA City is the second safest big city in the US. PERIOD.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

I admitted that if you count LA County, then the crime figures would be a lot different. But the fact remains, LA City IS the second safest big city in the US. People can think of Los Angeles however they want (city, county, metro). Generally when I speak of LA, I'm speaking more of it as a place, not a city. As a place, you could consider it dangerous with Compton (but that's away from the city center and no one goes there). If you consider it as a city, then LA is the second safest big city in the US. It's not convenient picking and choosing, it IS A *FACT* that LA City is the second safest big city in the US. 

BTW, when I said that it's hard to differentiate city from suburb, I was referring to it in the visual sense.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

But this thred is about LA County, not city,... In no way I meant to offend LA or bash it. I simply said what I was shown many times. Nothing else. I am open to new arguments and who lives there surely knows it best.


----------



## alex3000 (Oct 20, 2002)

cello1974 said:


> Tell it to American media who pass that image of LA over here in Europe!!!!


... and then you people (not living in the US of A) complain because Americans "believe" everything they see on TV/movies about other countries. :sleepy:


----------

