Is Millionaire Migration a Real Phenomenon?
In recent times, there has been a wave of studies and articles published claiming that millionaire migration and the supposed “millionaire exodus” have been proven to be false. However, these publications tend to assume that, if this phenomenon were to occur, it would be visible overnight or within a relatively short period of time. To address this criticism, it is of paramount importance to define millionaire migration. It is a phenomenon in which a particular location is deemed inhospitable enough to cause high-net-worth individuals to depart in search of more favorable conditions. The misunderstanding that those who deny this phenomenon fall into is the degree to which a location becomes inhospitable. Large cities, such as New York, will not see an immediate exodus due to a single tax increase. Certain exceptions do exist when policies become more extreme, but generally, the effects of such policies compound over time and eventually cause people to leave the city.
California would be a perfect example of this phenomenon and a key misconception surrounding it. The state has seen upwards of 102,000 millionaires leave since 2018, and many billionaires, including Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, have chosen to depart. However, the net number of millionaires did not decrease; if anything, it increased. This is where the misconception stems from. California’s ability to replace the millionaires who leave does not primarily come from migration into California, but rather from the creation of new millionaires. These millionaires were created through a large amount of investment in technology and innovation. However, if the individuals who possess the capital to make these investments are leaving, as has been observed, the creation of new millionaires will eventually slow down. These effects will not be seen immediately, as the investment infrastructure remains in place. However, as fewer individuals maintain and contribute to that infrastructure over time, there will be less wealth creation.
We can already see the creation of new infrastructure and systems of investment in other parts of the United States that offer more favorable conditions, with Austin, Texas, being one of the front-runners. The city saw a 25.6% increase in its startup ecosystem from April 2025 to April 2026. This growth was generated in part by Texas’s more favorable business environment compared with other parts of the United States, including the absence of a state corporate or personal income tax, less government regulation, and support for businesses from the state government, all of which attract high-net-worth individuals.
When looking at this phenomenon from the perspective of countries, the principle remains the same, but the scale differs. The United States is far ahead of other countries in the abundance of private capital it possesses and its willingness to utilize that capital to generate wealth. Therefore, policy changes may have a smaller effect on high-net-worth individuals’ decisions to depart the nation, but they can still have an effect. The compounding effects of policy over time can place a strain on the benefits the nation provides. This allows other nations and economic powers to offer a more hospitable environment for capital, creating a potential long-term threat to the United States.
Regrettably, many individuals who deny this phenomenon fail to consider the broader picture of economic growth within a city, state, or country over time. Economic consequences are rarely immediate, and the effects of policies can take years to fully materialize. History does not look favorably upon those who fail to sustain their growth.
In April, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, forecasted that, as a result of climbing tax rates, New York City, long the incubator of finance and technology firms, would lose its edge as a result of the rich leaving for greener, less progressive taxed pastures. Dimon, like many other prominent businessmen, has been skeptical of proposed policies implemented by Zohran Mamdani, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist mayor of New York City.
On paper, there may be truth to this warning. According to conservative papers like the New York Post, just the threat of taxation has led to the city seeing a “mass exodus of millionaires, leading to billions lost in taxes,”. However, looking at the picture as a whole reveals far more nuance.
The vast majority of sites complaining about an upper-class exodus initially seem to be correct. New York City's share of millionaires did fall from 12.7% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2022. However, the actual number of millionaires in New York City increased in the low estimate by about 28 thousand people in the same time span. Additionally, at this time Mr. Mamdani was known more for his mother’s direction of “Mississippi Masala,” a romantic comedy, than his tax policy, meaning that the supposed exodus had nothing to do with Mamdani to begin with.
Critics still point to JP Morgan scaling down manpower in New York, or firms like Citadel moving their headquarters away from the cities in the North. The problem with these examples is that these firms are typically moving operational staff down south, while retaining high-skill labor in big cities. That means that the wealthiest firms are branching out instead of abandoning big cities.
Regardless, several factors will keep the majority of firms from abandoning big cities like New York. First of all, the vast majority of personnel, especially in finance, prefer to stay in New York purely as a result of convenience. With a high concentration of similar jobs in the city, job stability is more assured. As a result, many firms stay in the city to have a strong supply of talent. Additionally, New York City has access to elite recruitment pipelines from prestigious Northeast universities, which means there's a consistent supply of high-level employees.
This same logic can be applied to the same myth that exists in California. Firms prefer to recruit talented engineers from Stanford, Berkeley, and Caltech, and those engineers prefer to stay in an area with ample job opportunities.
Much of the hype of millionaire migration comes from wealthy people themselves. Jamie Dimon has an obvious financial incentive to rail against higher taxes on his assets. Because wealthy citizens have deeper connections to lobbying and media, outside noise about millionaire migration is amplified when the donors of a news source voice frustrations over proposed tax plans. This also explains why some sources like The New York Post (which was already not known historically for unbiased reporting) go to great lengths to strengthen the claims of millionaire migration.
An example of this comes from the United Kingdom, whose citizens have also had spirited debates over tax systems. In 2025, a consultancy firm released a report decrying “Wexit”. The report even gained traction to the point where some even credited it for influencing then-Chancellor Rachel Reeves into diluting taxes on the wealthy. Unfortunately, the firm effectively failed to do standard statistical tests that a high schooler would learn; additionally, the data came from an undisclosed source, and to add insult to injury, the firm is literally in charge of selling residence and citizenship (golden visa’s) to wealthy people in exchange for investment.
Unfortunately, it seems Jamie Dimon may not have heeded these lessons. Just recently, he warned the current Chancellor of the UK, John Healey, against raising taxes on banks, on the principle that a higher levy would hurt finance jobs in London. Sound familiar?