9 Palo Alto Billionaires Named To The Forbes 400

[Pulkapresident]

9 Palo Alto Billionaires Named To The Forbes 400

The following Palo Alto billionaires were on the list:

• No. 3: Mark Zuckerberg (37), $134.5 billion from Facebook
• No. 5: Larry Page (48), $123 billion from Google
• No. 134: Anthony Wood (55), $6.9 billion from Roku
• No. 168: John A. Sobrato and family (82), $6.1 billion from real estate
• No. 209: Jeff Tangney (49), $5.1 billion from healthcare IT
• No. 224: Jeff Rothschild (66), $4.8 billion from Facebook
• No. 318: David Filo (55), $3.6 billion from Yahoo
• No. 333: Romesh T. Wadhwani (74), $3.5 billion from software
• No. 389: Baiju Bhatt (36), $2.9 billion from Robinhood stock trading app

[Pulkapresident]

1 minute ago, Pulkapresident said:

9 Palo Alto Billionaires Named To The Forbes 400

The following Palo Alto billionaires were on the list:

• No. 3: Mark Zuckerberg (37), $134.5 billion from Facebook
• No. 5: Larry Page (48), $123 billion from Google
• No. 134: Anthony Wood (55), $6.9 billion from Roku
• No. 168: John A. Sobrato and family (82), $6.1 billion from real estate
• No. 209: Jeff Tangney (49), $5.1 billion from healthcare IT
• No. 224: Jeff Rothschild (66), $4.8 billion from Facebook
• No. 318: David Filo (55), $3.6 billion from Yahoo
• No. 333: Romesh T. Wadhwani (74), $3.5 billion from software
• No. 389: Baiju Bhatt (36), $2.9 billion from Robinhood stock trading app

CC @Raven_Rayes @Telugodura456

[TOM_BHAYYA]

@tacobell fan anna are you romesh outside?

[Spartan]

Baiju Bhatt is @Vaampire

[tacobell fan]

1 hour ago, TOM_BHAYYA said:

@tacobell fan anna are you romesh outside?

Call me Zuck bro

[Vaampire]

3 hours ago, Spartan said:

Baiju Bhatt is @Vaampire

1995 born ikkada @Spartan uncle

[r2d2]

meanwhile..

Donald Trump Falls Off The Forbes 400 For First Time In 25 Years

[Raven_Rayes]

7 hours ago, Pulkapresident said:

CC

what about ultra rich in San Francisco? This is the list. Except San Jose, none of the cities probably have homes with huge lawns. Palo Alto seems to not even be in the top 10.

anyway, how they define a 'city' for this list is questionable.

Its a no brainer that low density housing is wasteful, even when purely looked at through how many wealthy people it generates.

no idea what argument you and telugodura are going for here, except clutching at straws to prove that aspiring to be rich, and having huge mansions for home is awesome. It may be, but it is not the point of the conversation.

[Battu123]

[Picheshwar]

1 hour ago, Raven_Rayes said:

what about ultra rich in San Francisco? This is the list. Except San Jose, none of the cities probably have homes with huge lawns. Palo Alto seems to not even be in the top 10.

anyway, how they define a 'city' for this list is questionable.

Its a no brainer that low density housing is wasteful, even when purely looked at through how many wealthy people it generates.

no idea what argument you and telugodura are going for here, except clutching at straws to prove that aspiring to be rich, and having huge mansions for home is awesome. It may be, but it is not the point of the conversation.

List says ultra wealthy people.

it can be number of people having >100M or 10M.

 

but Palo Alto is definitely has more tech billionaires than any other city in bay area

[Raven_Rayes]

1 minute ago, Picheshwar said:

List says ultra wealthy people.

it can be number of people having >100M or 10M.

 

but Palo Alto is definitely has more tech billionaires than any other city in bay area

the list is on people with >$30m. but that was not the conversation. this pilli just brought it up randomly because I said San Francisco is better than ugly low density neighbourhoods like Palo Alto.

Low density neighbourhoods have almost no economic activity, and completely rely on cities that are in the neighbourhood.

[Raven_Rayes]

9 minutes ago, Picheshwar said:

but Palo Alto is definitely has more tech billionaires than any other city in bay area

may be San Francisco in this list, includes Palo Alto too. who knows. People define city limits randomly for lists such as these.

But it is inescapable that Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View etc are not replicable elsewhere. They formed due to historical reasons of how Silicon Valley came to be. But the Silicon Valley has now shifted to San Francisco. That's where majority of jobs exist. Not in any of the above cities.

[Pulkapresident]

8 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

may be San Francisco in this list, includes Palo Alto too. who knows. People define city limits randomly for lists such as these.

But it is inescapable that Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View etc are not replicable elsewhere. They formed due to historical reasons of how Silicon Valley came to be. But the Silicon Valley has now shifted to San Francisco. That's where majority of jobs exist. Not in any of the above cities.

Lol, wrong.

[Raven_Rayes]

1 minute ago, Pulkapresident said:

Lol, wrong.

ok.

[Raven_Rayes]

22 minutes ago, Pulkapresident said:

Lol, wrong.

according to this unicorn list,

https://www.cbinsights.com/research-unicorn-companies

San Francisco seems to house 120+ firms, while Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo park, San Jose house about 20.

a lot of established firms may be dominating these cities, but the startup game has clearly moved to San Fracisco, due to stricter zoning laws that don't allow new construction.

anyway, the fact is SanFrancisco+San Jose bay area produces about half economic output as the greater New york which is comparable in size, but has more population.

yeah bay area definitely has higher per capita income than New York, but it still makes bay area the anomaly not the normal. US is full of low density housing areas like the Bay Area, but none of them have turned productive.

I think you may have the cause and effect in the reverse. Bay Area's (minus san francisco) wealth created the exclusive neighbourhood of these cities, and not the other way around. Its inefficient to push this everywhere else.