Quote of the day

Loading Quotes...


Chelsea’s Wedding Good for Economy?

Now that it’s behind us, I’ve been thinking about this. There was criticism over its cost, especially in these tough economic times. But let’s take a look (thanks to ABC News) at the expenses of the Clinton wedding.

Reception Space: $125,000 to $200,000
Catering: $750,000
Flowers: $250,000
Music: $40,000
Wedding Dress: $15,000
Photography: $35,000
Video: $25,000
Lighting: $75,000 to $100,000
Hair and Makeup: $20,000
Invitations: $40,000 to $50,000
Party Planner: $175,000
Rehearsal Dinner: $250,000
Security: $30,000
Miscellaneous: $50,000

Wow, over $2 million. On the other hand, when you look at these expenses, a great portion is labor. With 500 guests, I don’t imagine the food cost is actually $1500 per person. Regardless of the individual items, you can review them one by one as easily as I can, all in all, there are many people involved in this wedding. The way I look at this, the economy doesn’t benefit by everyone sitting on their money. Spending is the life blood of the economy, and in the big picture, affairs like this play a part in getting us out of the recession.
What do you think? Would we be better off if this money weren’t spent, if the newly married couple just eloped?
Joe

  • Greg August 19, 2010, 7:24 am

    Joe,

    What is your point? If the Clintons what to drop $2M on a wedding who are you (or anyone else for that matter) to discuss “would we be better off if this money weren’t spent”? It’s not your money.Tying the global economy to the costs of a high profile wedding apparently isn’t beneath you. When did you become the Financial National Inquirer?

  • JOE August 19, 2010, 8:09 am

    I was reacting to the criticism I had been reading. It’s not for me to judge either way, agreed, but I view this spending as good, and would like to more, not less, of it.

  • Augustine August 19, 2010, 9:47 am

    No, Joe, spending is not the life blood of the economy, production is. I thought that this had already been established after the debacles of the hugest credit bubble in history when people did nothing but spend.

  • JOE August 19, 2010, 7:33 pm

    What comes first, though? Is it that you feel we are turning in a service economy? Pushing paper around but losing manufacturing? Much of the spending for this type of function is service related, not prompting an item to be built, I see that. But it does start the process by getting dollars moving. I hope.

  • Lop at Rebates Money August 19, 2010, 8:40 pm

    If they got the money, let them spend however they like. The couple could have ask for the $2 Million up front from the folks because I don’t think they will ever make that much with their regular income.

  • Anji August 20, 2010, 9:32 am

    Weddings aren’t my thing but if people want to spend that kind of money and they’ve got it, why not. It could stimulate a craze in expensive wedding dresses like Princess Diana’s dress did. was the dress ‘made in America’? Were the flowers grown in the US? it would be interesting to know…

  • Roshawn @ Watson Inc August 20, 2010, 1:10 pm

    I do think it is good for the economy, but I also feel like it is no one’s business. It’s their wedding and it sounds like it a great time. Ultimately, that’s what is really important. The economy is the economy, meaning it’s going to do what it does.

  • JOE August 20, 2010, 1:32 pm

    Agreed, Shawn. When it’s a CEO spending shareholder dollars, someone needs to speak up, but how people spend their own money should be no one’s business. Although, the spending of any high profile people is likely to be very public.

  • Elle August 20, 2010, 1:52 pm

    What is posted above is a guess of the expenses. The guess was made around July 22, per the link. The wedding was on July 31.

    Whatever the expenses actually were, and unlike Mr. Clinton’s affair while President, I think this is a private matter.

  • JOE August 20, 2010, 2:41 pm

    Do politicians and celebrities give up their right to privacy? I hear more about some than I ever cared to know. This just struck me from a different angle, I thought “Don’t criticize this, spending is good.”

  • Roshawn @ Watson Inc August 20, 2010, 2:57 pm

    Well, I wasn’t going to bring this up, but sense Elle did, there has been comments from “insiders” that $2-5 million dollar estimates were grossly exaggerated anyway. “No $3 Million Wedding for Chelsea – and Other Rumors Put to Rest” in People magazine.

    If they are to be trusted, this means that the Clintons did a lot less economic stimulation that the estimates would suggest.

  • JOE August 20, 2010, 5:01 pm

    I appreciate the link. Thank-you both, I shouldn’t have taken the ABC story to be fact.

  • Elle August 21, 2010, 1:12 pm

    My comment that I think this is a private matter was not meant to condemn talk about the wedding. Please, chatter and enjoy! I did with friends. I meant that I do not care how much the Clintons and Mezvinskys spent. It is their right to put on a nice gathering for their beloved daughter and son and bring friends and family to witness a celebration of (oh no oh gosh lookout) love. Daughters and sons definitionally being priceless.

    I do agree about stimulating the economy. It is a fun and valid counter to all the kvetching. Also it seems to me that gatherings such as this help nurture alliances for good causes. The Clintons do much work for charity. Marc Mezvinsky’s parents have five adopted children. And so on. Yes I would have voted to impeach Mr. Clinton back in the 90s (mostly for stupidity; I would have voted for his acquittal, though). Yes he was foolish for being one of the leaders of the repeal of Glass Steagal in 1999. Yet he and she mostly do a lot of good, in my book. I would vote for Mr. or Mrs. Clinton today in a heartbeat for any national office.

    On July 31 I thoroughly enjoyed the little news reporting of this lovely occasion that could be had. Let us not forget one wedding day reporter’s observation that they had been assigned to a pen next to 12 cows. The cows probably knew more about the wedding than the reporters. Good job, Clintons and Mezvinskys.

  • Financial Samurai August 21, 2010, 9:05 pm

    Definitely good for the economy!

    Also definitely good since the Republicans can now rag on the Democrats for NOT doing what they preach.

  • Francis Champaco August 22, 2010, 4:30 pm

    Chelsea deserves everything her parents do for her she has been a great daughter. she should have what she wanted this was her day not Bill and Hilary. so just be happy for the couple.

  • Deidre Lessman August 22, 2010, 11:25 pm

    Found your post via Yahoo. The economy won’t improve unless we keep low interest rates and get unemployment under control. the real estate market has to improve to bring the economy up. Particularly in Nevada and similar markets.

  • sean August 27, 2010, 10:58 am

    I think it was better off that she spent the money. If you have it why not spend it? I have met Chelsea a few times and first of all she is very good looking in person and second she is very down to earth and has a great sense of humor. What other occasions are there that she should have spent it on? Anyways good point it was better to put the money back into the economy.

    Check out my blog Joe http://www.wealthvest.com/blog

Leave a Comment