Protests are planned as the tourism-battered canal city gears up for the wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, but many in Venice say the billionaire’s nuptials should be welcomed.
Bezos’ is hardly the only high-dollar wedding to be held in the city — not least George and Amal Clooney’s nuptials in 2014, which were cheered on by locals.
Yeah don’t confuse the Clooneys for Bezos, please. Whether an actor should be a half-billionaire is up for debate but if anyone should have that kind of money yes it’s artists, sportsball players, etc. That is, don’t confuse celebrities and feudal lords. Venice is an ancient and serene republic, have some self-respect.
Because an entertainer/athlete gets a paycheck for doing a job. They’re not getting rich underpaying employees.
The debatable part comes in when you get more nuanced than that: The richest of them probably derives most of their wealth from investments once they’ve accumulated enough capital. Their industry requires the efforts of many underpaid people (even if they don’t directly get a say in that). Anyone that keeps (not just earns) a billion wakes up every morning and decides not to solve homelessness in their city. Etc.
But a 20mm paycheck to put asses in seats is a paycheck, not exploitation.
The vast majority of CEOs don’t become billionaires, most billionaires are born with a golden spoon in their mouth, and the rest got there by stepping on everyone else’s backs. That’s rewarding sociopathy.
Artists and athletes don’t do either, they work to get good at their craft and, crucially, would be doing the same thing even if they were not as successful as they are. You can count them as petite bourgeois which of course come in good and bad but as artists and athletes are not, by trade, businesspeople they tend to very much fall on the good side. Like, you won’t see Clooney undermining the actor’s union – on the contrary, he’s advocated for raising his own union dues. And when they use their money to start a business you don’t tend to get another Oracle or something but ARCH Motorcycles. Give me one reason why, in luxury space anarchism, the answer to Keanu Reeves saying “I want to build cool motorcycles, you in?” the answer of the collective wouldn’t range from “hell yes” to “meh but you guys do you”. He’d get all the resources he’d need: He entertained and uplifted billions, of course we’ll chime in.
OTOH, of course, fuck J.K. Rowling. But unlike with the golden spoon billionaires she’s the exception, not the norm.
My 2cents: Bezos money comes from other people’s works, entertainers money comes from the perception that other people has of their work.
Of course there are exceptions.
Yeah don’t confuse the Clooneys for Bezos, please. Whether an actor should be a half-billionaire is up for debate but if anyone should have that kind of money yes it’s artists, sportsball players, etc. That is, don’t confuse celebrities and feudal lords. Venice is an ancient and serene republic, have some self-respect.
Why would it be more fair for them than CEOs? I’m not defending this one but asking in general.
Because an entertainer/athlete gets a paycheck for doing a job. They’re not getting rich underpaying employees.
The debatable part comes in when you get more nuanced than that: The richest of them probably derives most of their wealth from investments once they’ve accumulated enough capital. Their industry requires the efforts of many underpaid people (even if they don’t directly get a say in that). Anyone that keeps (not just earns) a billion wakes up every morning and decides not to solve homelessness in their city. Etc.
But a 20mm paycheck to put asses in seats is a paycheck, not exploitation.
The vast majority of CEOs don’t become billionaires, most billionaires are born with a golden spoon in their mouth, and the rest got there by stepping on everyone else’s backs. That’s rewarding sociopathy.
Artists and athletes don’t do either, they work to get good at their craft and, crucially, would be doing the same thing even if they were not as successful as they are. You can count them as petite bourgeois which of course come in good and bad but as artists and athletes are not, by trade, businesspeople they tend to very much fall on the good side. Like, you won’t see Clooney undermining the actor’s union – on the contrary, he’s advocated for raising his own union dues. And when they use their money to start a business you don’t tend to get another Oracle or something but ARCH Motorcycles. Give me one reason why, in luxury space anarchism, the answer to Keanu Reeves saying “I want to build cool motorcycles, you in?” the answer of the collective wouldn’t range from “hell yes” to “meh but you guys do you”. He’d get all the resources he’d need: He entertained and uplifted billions, of course we’ll chime in.
OTOH, of course, fuck J.K. Rowling. But unlike with the golden spoon billionaires she’s the exception, not the norm.
My 2cents: Bezos money comes from other people’s works, entertainers money comes from the perception that other people has of their work. Of course there are exceptions.