I don't know much about this guy, but I remember reading an interview with him maybe 15 years ago where he was asked if his lifestyle had changed since he came into money and if he bought a new house or anything, and his answer was basically something like: "Not really, and I've already got good water pressure where I'm at, what else do I need?" I can't help but like his attitude.
He apparently bought this place in 2016:<p><a href="https://streeteasy.com/blog/craigslist-property/" rel="nofollow">https://streeteasy.com/blog/craigslist-property/</a>
I can't help but like his altitude.
Craigslist is often held up as an example of a company "doing it right", but what is never mentioned in these posts is that a large portion of their revenue comes from facilitating scams. Around 25% of rooms/apartments I contact are scams, and Craigslist has so far done nothing to prevent these. A common scam is to take pictures from a real estate site of a house that recently sold and advertise it as for rent, but they don't even let you say "I live at this house and do not want to rent it, don't let anyone post it".
From Craig's Wikipedia article [0]. He sure cares about fighting scams. Craigslist != Craig I know, but may these are intractable problems, not that there's necessarily negligence<p>> In 2022, Newmark committed $50 million to the Cyber Civil Defense initiative.[39] As of April 2022, approximately $30 million of this commitment had been awarded.[40]<p>> In 2023, Craig Newmark Philanthropies announced it would double its donations from $50 million to $100 million for fighting cyber threats.[41]<p>> In 2026, Newmark founded a public service campaign, "Take9", encouraging users to pause and think before responding to a text or email to help avoid being scammed.[42][43] A video for the campaign featured Newmark teaming up with Count von Count from Sesame Street.[42][43]<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Newmark" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Newmark</a>
Craigslist doesn't make any money from those scams because they don't charge for rental listings. It sucks that it's there, but for them to hire staff to deal with it, they'd have to charge for the rental listings.<p>Right now they rely on volunteers to combat that problem, in the form of legit landlords reporting the scams.
It's also one of the major things the destroyed newspapers. I'm not saying that's bad, just pointing out it happened.
Airbnb has the same exact problem. Also doesn’t seem to give a crap when they’re reported.
Craigslist doesn't even charge for rental listings, do they? I thought they only charge for help wanted ads.
Is Craigslist still the go-to classifieds site in some places?<p>Around here it’s (very sadly IMO) been almost completely replaced by Facebook Marketplace, to the extent that people make Facebook accounts just to use Marketplace.
I'd be curious to know how the economics of craigslist works, such that he's made so many hundreds of millions of dollars. It only charges a modest fee for a small fraction of transactions, but presumably the denominator is big enough that this adds up (and of course he would have subsequently invested the proceeds).<p>I had assumed that the fee portion of the site was substantial enough to cover all costs, and generate perhaps tens of millions of profit (he's well known for having given away money to media, so obviously there's some profit). But I didn't realize that it made hundreds of millions of dollars.<p>Are there any articles that break down how this pencils out?
A few details are given here: <a href="https://fox4kc.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/799122396/craigslist-revenue-traffic-drops-again-one-third-of-2018-total/" rel="nofollow">https://fox4kc.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/799...</a><p>Revenue peaked in 2018 at $1 billion.
I suppose some of it is due to craigslist being around for 30+ years. At $25-$30 million a year, it adds up over time. And then if he invests most of it, 30 years of compounding interest does the rest.
Yeah, and investing during the last 30 years would yield incredible results even if you are lousy at picking stocks. And of course, if you'd put even a tiny bit into BTC, you'd have even more.
Craigslist is one of the few sites with a UI even better than HN. Totally fits that Craig would have this type of character.
I wonder what the infrastructure is like for craigslist.
How did he even make money? Was it from craigslist? If so, how!?
I'm curious about the logistical details of Newmark's donations. Skimmed the article but didn't see an answer. This is just a pledge to donate at this point, right? Newmark has not yet actually transferred any money? Presumably his trust would handle the transfer after his death or something. But then what exactly are they donating? Shares in a private company?
This article has a few details: <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/news/craigslist-founder-signs-giving-pledge-and-narrows-focus/" rel="nofollow">https://www.philanthropy.com/news/craigslist-founder-signs-g...</a>
The article does say that he’s already given away this amount of money since the founding of Craigslist 30 years ago. From the sound of things he’s always actively doing philanthropic work, but I could be reading into it too much.
> “They told me that I should treat people like I want to be treated,” he said. “I should know when enough is enough. And they told me I should be my brother's keeper or my sister's keeper. And that made sense to me.”<p>Refreshing to see a multimillionaire+ who actually knows the meaning of the word "enough." The world seems to be run by people who don't even know of the word.
This is a great reminder even for those of us who aren't multi-millionaires. It's easy to get wrapped up pursuing ostentation and even notoriety as elements of our culture hold it up as as goal to strive for, and I think it's important to see it for the hollow goal it is regardless of your income.
Truthfully, it doesn't shock me that the founder of Craigslist in particular, a site that found a good, workable setup and then left it as is, would know this. Its more disappointing that no one else really seems to know when enough is enough.
Planetwork org (serious,respected,boutique) interviewed with these people and got a sort of snotty frat guy to answer to.. He wanted to know if I had been to any weddings in France recently, as part of the interview. no checks were written
Can we get better source for this story? I find that website to be unreadable.
good for him!<p>but empty words to the american working class<p>it may be too late, now ppl hate the rich
I know two people who immigrated to the US with essentially no money. They're multimillionaires now. America is the place to be if you want to get wealthy.
America is the place for very few people to get wealthy relatively compared to the rest is more accurate.<p>I don't know how long this asymmetric upside down pyramid structure will hold. Monopoly on violence requires participants to believe in its continuity, any fracture in perception no matter how small, will create an increasingly chaotic redistribution effect.
"The rest" is still quite wealthy, even by today's developed economy standards. Median household disposable income is higher in Mississippi, a state widely panned for its poverty, than Germany, the richest major EU nation.<p>In American discourse, there's a ton of talk about inequality from the haves against the have-mores, pushing policy that often times will lead to worse outcomes for the have-nots.
median household income is not higher in missisippi vs germany, especially not true if you adjust for healthcare, education, and social benefits including time off work.
[dead]
The top 1% of America pays 40% of the federal income taxes.<p>Getting rid of the rich is probably a pretty bad idea for the rest of us.
The thing scares me the most about growing old is becoming a conservative that I have seen happen to many people who I used to admire like Scott Adams, Musk, or the creator of the D language.
This is a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government.
[flagged]
As they should. Money boils down to a finite resource, and a class of people have been flaunting their theft of the working class since the famous balcony champagne image taken during Occupy Wallstreet.<p>That singular image should be the poster of this Epstein era.
> Money boils down to a finite resource<p>Musk more amply demonstrated how wealth is created.
The reason there is cynicism around philanthropy by America's elite class is perhaps the obliviousness to the methods and means it is created and supported.<p>"Here is a few billion dollar to a non profit company I control but you better not write that in the article" or "I didn't care for social consequences, I was just another player, it was ultimately for you" vibes<p>it just doesn't have the impact it used to, ironically because then inflation was low and integrity/morality was rewarded as society.<p>I think Ray Dalio has done a fantastic job of mapping out the trajectory we are on. We've already started seen glimpse of it and I don't think its going to cool down. America and the West in general has growing fatigue with various elements and perhaps the biggest one is that of wealth gap disparity.<p>Perhaps a snapshot of where we are: The richer you get the more you need access and proximity to those that monopolized violence and pay protection money too. It's not unlike Italy in the 1800s, you need money to purchase and distribute violence to acquire more resources and eventually the gap gets too big, people can't afford bread, and they get bold.
We are almost two decades into the age of billionaire philanthropy and what’s results has it produced? Can you point to any area where it’s really changed the world?<p>I think a fundamental problem is that the non-profit/NGO sector doesn’t have the same caliber of people as the private sector. There’s no Jeff Bezos equivalent working on inner city education. Bill Gates is really the only one who has tackled this, by investing his own time into public health, which I understand has produced real results.
We're a century into it at least, even in nominal dollar terms, starting with Rockefeller as the first billionaire.<p>I don't know whether John Arnold is spread too thin or not, but he's certainly top caliber and does a lot to measure progress before/during investment in various causes (including education). He also seems to be more agnostic on what the most appropriate solution may be at the beginning of the process.
Sounds like you may have read it but the book Winner Takes All is about this topic and pretty enjoyable.<p>I think there's a case to be made that philanthropy produced the Internet Archive but maybe that's a little different from usual philanthropy since Brewster is very hands on for so long.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Charade_of_Changing_the_World" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Ch...</a>
I understand Gates has also helped in reviving Nuclear power, from reading news on this site and others. Smaller, updated designs that don't face quite the same level of pressure from regulators.<p>If we assume you are right about billionaire philanthropy being basically ineffectual (I personally agree) there is a line of reasoning that I find explains why adequately. When systems don't have their incentives structured properly, then quite often the unexpected outcomes are stronger than the predicted outcome. Because the input to the system did not properly account for, or change the incentives which drive the dynamics of the system.<p>Examples about in healthcare, social programs, education... large SWE companies...<p>There's so little real pressure for results when you're backed by some billionaire's fortune, the existence of the organization is not threatened by non-performance... there's no free market to survive in, the goal is to lose money... the things you are trying to measure are slow signals or mostly qualitative...
The Gates Foundation also put a lot of money into education in the US, but my understanding is that it’s had mixed results. Public health seems to be easier.