The 21 most influential cities in the world

[10023]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

More like 1,000,000th of his wealth.

Zuckerberg is worth $75 billion, but a millionth of his wealth wouldn’t even buy you a Cayenne. That’s only $75,000. A thousandth of his wealth is more like it. That’s “use Netjets but nobody knows who you are” money.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Not even gonna include Guns n Roses, Van Halen, and Motley Crue in Los Angeles? Smh.

Also Metallica, slayer, megadeth, Zappa, captain beefheart, social distortion...

[10023]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Also Metallica, slayer, megadeth, Zappa, captain beefheart, social distortion...

Well, most of those bands are terrible.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

Well, most of those bands are terrible.

I don’t think Guns n Roses belong in a list of heavy metal 80s hair bands.

They were clearly much more talented and deserve more credit

[10023]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I don’t think Guns n Roses belong in a list of heavy metal 80s hair bands.

They were clearly much more talented and deserve more credit

Sure. But Metallica, Slayee and Megadeth are nothing to brag about.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by 10023

Zuckerberg is worth $75 billion, but a millionth of his wealth wouldn’t even buy you a Cayenne. That’s only $75,000. A thousandth of his wealth is more like it. That’s “use Netjets but nobody knows who you are” money.

I know of plenty of people with less than that who try and pretend to be rich, so I stand by it.

[austin242]

As far as the 5 most influential cities in the US over the last century I'd say.
1: Detroit (Auto industry, Music, Architecture, and a compass of where our economy is at)
2:New York (Finance, Trade, Mixing pot of cultures, Power, 9-11, Theater, Architecture, fashion)
3:LA (Film, Music, Olympics, Advertising, Finance)
4:Chicago (Architecture, Music, film, industry)
5:Tie Houston-Dallas-San francisco (Oil, Tech, etc)

[10023]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

I know of plenty of people with less than that who try and pretend to be rich, so I stand by it.

Not people with $75,000.

[mhays]

They might not pretend to be rich, but a lot of people with $75,000 net worths pretend to be prosperous. Like buying cars and "living room sets" while having nothing saved for retirement.

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by 10023

Sure. But Metallica, Slayee and Megadeth are nothing to brag about.

All three of those, especially Metallica are definitely something to brag about. You don’t have to like metal to understand the influence those three bands have had on decades of music.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by ocman

Monaco and Liechtenstein are tax havens. But San Jose never fails to impress me with the crazy amount of well-off people. I live on the Peninsula now where there’s this feeling that everyone around you is doing better than you. In Paris, it was the opposite. It felt like everyone is just getting by or struggling along with you. You could never “feel” the wealth in Paris like you do in the Bay Area.

Unfortunately, the Bay Area and other high priced places, have a ton of people earning $100,000+ who see themselves as struggling because of the housing shortage.

But I digress.

About the visible wealth thing, it used to be way more subdued on the Peninsula-now people are more showy.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by 10023

Not people with $75,000.

Yes and sometimes people with less than $10k just trying to fit in.

I'm talking about people with much more expensive cars than where they live. People with expensive brand name clothes that struggle from paycheck to paycheck or worse.

I've seen it with my own eyes. Blame high school and pop culture.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by austin242

As far as the 5 most influential cities in the US over the last century I'd say.
1: Detroit (Auto industry, Music, Architecture, and a compass of where our economy is at)
2:New York (Finance, Trade, Mixing pot of cultures, Power, 9-11, Theater, Architecture, fashion)
3:LA (Film, Music, Olympics, Advertising, Finance)
4:Chicago (Architecture, Music, film, industry)
5:Tie Houston-Dallas-San francisco (Oil, Tech, etc)

How the Hell does Detroit rate over New York? Where's Washington? Even I can't buy Houston so high, we've done well over the last century getting established as not just a big city but an elite major city but come on, Houston has had little lasting influence.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

How the Hell does Detroit rate over New York? Where's Washington? Even I can't buy Houston so high, we've done well over the last century getting established as not just a big city but an elite major city but come on, Houston has had little lasting influence.

I agree about Detroit. Motown and assembly lines, but past that what has it really contributed? Not even as a barometer. I mean, you could talk about how it suffered from the automation of manufacturing and how white flight to the suburbs is radically illustrated there, but a full picture of how those impacted the country as a whole would need to include more positives, too, and evidence of how there were winners in those changes, too. Detroit sadly seems to only illustrate the losers - and while the U.S. in the past 100 years has had plenty of losers, it's still also had plenty of winners. An influential city ideally showcases the winners more than the losers. As for Washington, as a city, I don't feel it's really contributed much. Sure the Federal government has played an enormous role in history, but do we give the city credit for that? I don't think so, personally, since the vast majority of power players in the Federal government aren't from Washington originally and don't really take their ideas from the city but either from national discussions or from the locality they're from originally.

[The North One]

LOL you're always talking shit about Detroit, if you know nothing why chime in? Your ignorance is not evidence of a lack of what the city has and continues to contribute.

No aspect of your life and or lifestyle would be the same without Detroit, the US wouldn't be the country it is today and Europe would have probably fallen to a dictator (Russian, German or otherwise), you would lose multiple genres of music and legendary artists, countless medical and engineering technologies the city spearheaded wouldn't exist. And that's just the surface.

Past urban disinvestment aside, a wealthy city of five million people is no "loser", and it's problems are certainly nothing nearly every US city has dealt with. I wouldn't put it above New York but considering US cities it is up there.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Unfortunately, the Bay Area and other high priced places, have a ton of people earning $100,000+ who see themselves as struggling because of the housing shortage.

But I digress.

About the visible wealth thing, it used to be way more subdued on the Peninsula-now people are more showy.

I think it's that new money vs. old money thing. New money tends to be flashier and more showy.

And it used to be that Atherton and Hillsborough were *the* wealthy cities of the Peninsula outside of SF of course, and they were very old money. I haven't been through those towns in a while... unless they have strict development codes and architectural review boards, I can imagine that maybe some new money has been moving there and they've been probably building more outrageous mansions compared to the more tasteful subdued older ones that I remember.

Regarding SF, on my last visit there, going through Presidio Heights, I thought to myself 'who lives here and what do they do for a living??' Presidio Heights is so old-school wealthy neighborhood from a century ago, I couldn't even imagine people from the tech industry living there, I would think that those homes would be out of reach even for techies---or maybe those style of homes are too old fashioned for them?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Regarding SF, on my last visit there, going through Presidio Heights, I thought to myself 'who lives here and what do they do for a living??'

Why do they have to have tech-related jobs? SF was a wealthy city and metro prior to tech.

They could be (among other things) entrepreneurs, celebrities, doctors, lawyers, corporate senior management, or they could just have inherited wealth.

Or they could have bought a long time ago. Many wealthy enclaves have "normal" people who bought 40 years ago, when it was cheap. My aunt lives in a coastal CA enclave of $3-4 million++ homes but she has neighbors who are retired teachers, cops, and the like.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why do they have to have tech-related jobs? SF was a wealthy city and metro prior to tech.

They could be (among other things) entrepreneurs, celebrities, doctors, lawyers, corporate senior management, or they could just have inherited wealth.

Or they could have bought a long time ago. Many wealthy enclaves have "normal" people who bought 40 years ago, when it was cheap. My aunt lives in a coastal CA enclave of $3-4 million++ homes but she has neighbors who are retired teachers, cops, and the like.

I wasn't saying that they had to have tech-related jobs; in fact, just the opposite: I said that I couldn't even imagine tech people living there, because these homes were the totally old-school railroad magnate type of homes.

And that's what I was getting at; those Presidio Heights homes looked very old money, to the point that I was wondering what those people did for a living. I get that feeling too walking around my own town; South Pasadena, as well as Pasadena and San Marino, have some very huge old mansions, and I often wonder what the people who live in them do for a living. Even if they were passed down to them, what do they do for jobs, I will sometimes wonder...