Jeff Bezos' Venice Wedding Was Relatively Cheap
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Jeff Bezos' multimillion dollar wedding to Lauren Sanchez in Venice was relatively cheap...for him.
The cost of the nuptials on Friday was estimated between $47 million and $56 million, according to Reuters, citing Luca Zaia, president of the Veneto region where the Italian city of canals is based. And while this sum may appear lavish to any ordinary American, it amounted to just 0.0193-0.0230 percent of the Amazon founder's estimated $244 billion net worth, as recorded by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
The average and median net worth of an American family is $1,063,700 and $192,900 respectively, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Federal Reserve. This means Bezos' wedding was financially similar to an average American spending less than $250 on their wedding—about the cost of a family dinner or a new pair of sneakers.
To put that percentage into further context, Newsweek analyzed what similarly proportioned wedding spending would look like for Americans in professions such as construction, nursing and law.
Lauren Sanchez Bezos, left, and Jeff Bezos depart from the Aman hotel during wedding celebrations on June 28, 2025, in Venice, Italy.
Lauren Sanchez Bezos, left, and Jeff Bezos depart from the Aman hotel during wedding celebrations on June 28, 2025, in Venice, Italy.
Luca Bruno/AP Photo
Why It Matters
Bezos is currently the third richest person in the world, after Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
The comparatively negligible impact of the billionaire's wedding bill on his total wealth highlights the vast and growing gap between the world's richest individuals and the average American worker. Half of regular Americans anticipate going into debt to pay for their weddings, according to a survey earlier this month by U.S. News.
What To Know
Newsweek used ChatGPT to help calculate the dollar amount U.S. workers in several professions would need to spend on a wedding to match the same fraction of net worth as Bezos did.
Breaking Down the Proportions
A construction worker, whose average net worth is approximately $60,000, would only spend between $11.58 and $13.80 on their wedding, as that amount is 0.0193 percent to 0.0230 percent of their net worth. This is roughly the equivalent of two small lattes from Starbucks.
Nurses, whose average net worth was calculated to be approximately $125,000, could spend between $24.13 and $28.75 on their wedding. This is less than the cost of two bacon cheeseburgers from Five Guys.
According to the AI, journalists have a lower net worth than nurses, with just $100,000 as their total net worth, meaning they have even less to spend on their weddings if sticking to Bezos' budget ratio. Journalists could spend between $19.30 and $23 on a nuptial celebration—about as much as one fancy cocktail in New York City.
Teachers have a slightly higher budget of $38.60 to $46 based on an estimated $200,000 net worth. Meanwhile, the average American lawyer can afford to splash out, with $96.50 to $115 on their wedding, if sticking to spending a maximum of 0.0230 percent of their estimated $500,000 net worth.
How Net Worth Estimates Were Calculated
The AI constructed the approximate net worth figures from publicly available U.S. salary data, industry wage reports and national wealth surveys. For construction workers, median annual wages of $46,050 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed an estimated 30-year career saving a modest percentage of income, landing at a net worth of $60,000. Nurses, with average salaries near $89,000 and consistent retirement contributions, were estimated with net worth ranging from $125,000 to $175,000. Journalists—often burdened by lower salaries and potential student debt—were projected at $100,000. Teachers, benefiting from defined-benefit pensions, could reach $200,000 or more, while lawyers, despite student loan burdens, commonly reach at least $500,000.
Actual net worth can vary significantly due to factors such as debt levels, regional cost of living, career interruptions, investment returns and household dynamics. These figures should be viewed as illustrative models—not precise financial portraits of individual workers in these professions.
These calculations also do not take into account the age at which people in these professions reach this level of net worth. Most weddings occur when people are younger, meaning they may not have reached their highest earning potential by the time they get married.
Activists stage a protest against the Bezos wedding on the Rialto Bridge on June 28, 2025, in Venice, Italy.
Activists stage a protest against the Bezos wedding on the Rialto Bridge on June 28, 2025, in Venice, Italy.
Antonio Calanni/AP Photo
Bezos, 61, and Sanchez, 55, both getting married for the second time, tied the knot over the weekend in Venice after a nearly two-year engagement.
The wedding was met with protesters in the city who said the city should not be rented by "oligarchs," with lead protester Marta Sottoriva saying "our city has been sold to the highest bidder."
City officials disagreed with Sottoriva's "No Space for Bezos" campaign, saying Bezos donated money to Venetian causes, such as restoring council homes, as part of his agreement with the city.
Bezos, Sanchez and their approximately 200 celebrity guests, including Leonardo DiCaprio, several Kardashians and Oprah Winfrey, partied in Venice for several days, shutting off portions of the city from its residents.
What People Are Saying
Marta Sottoriva, leader of "No Space for Bezos," told The Guardian: "There's a lot of anger in the air because once again the council has enslaved itself to the logic of profit—our city has been sold to the highest bidder. Every time an event of this kind happens, the city comes to a standstill, certain areas become inaccessible and even more tourists arrive. This wedding really is the symbol of all that is wrong with Venice."
Hannah Holland, writing for MSNBC, said: "This wedding—the tenor, the clothes, the cost—indicate a callous indifference toward the realities the rest of the world is facing."
Usher leaves a hotel during celebrations for Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez Bezos' wedding, in Venice on June 28, 2025.
Usher leaves a hotel during celebrations for Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez Bezos' wedding, in Venice on June 28, 2025.
Luigi Costantini/AP Photo
What Happens Next
The wedding industry in the U.S. continues to be a highly lucrative business, with people spending more on weddings than ever before, according to Grand View Research. However, some couples are starting to reconsider their spending, opting to save up for a home or for children instead of a wedding party.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
23 minutes ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
WIRED
28 minutes ago
- WIRED
OpenAI Leadership Responds to Meta Offers: 'Someone Has Broken Into Our Home'
Jun 29, 2025 3:07 PM As Mark Zuckerberg lures away top research talent to Meta, OpenAI executives say they're 'recalibrating comp,' according to an internal memo. OpenAI logo during World News Media Congress at ICE Krakow Congress Centr in Krakow, Poland on May 5th, 2025. Photograph:Mark Chen, the chief research officer at OpenAI, sent a forceful memo to staff on Saturday, promising to go head-to-head with the social giant in the war for top research talent. This memo, which was sent to OpenAI employees in Slack and obtained by WIRED, came days after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg successfully recruited four senior researchers from the company to join Meta's superintelligence lab. 'I feel a visceral feeling right now, as if someone has broken into our home and stolen something,' Chen wrote. 'Please trust that we haven't been sitting idly by.' Chen promised that he was working with Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, and other leaders at the company 'around the clock to talk to those with offers,' adding, 'we've been more proactive than ever before, we're recalibrating comp, and we're scoping out creative ways to recognize and reward top talent.' Still, even as OpenAI leadership appears desperate to retain its staff, Chen said that he has 'high personal standards of fairness,' and wants to retain top talent with that in mind. 'While I'll fight to keep every one of you, I won't do so at the price of fairness to others,' he wrote. The news comes as competition for top AI researchers is heating up in Silicon Valley. Zuckerberg has been particularly aggressive in his approach, offering $100 million signing bonuses to some OpenAI staffers, according to comments Altman made on a podcast with his brother, Jack Altman. Multiple sources at OpenAI with direct knowledge of the offers confirmed the number. The Meta CEO has also been personally reaching out to potential recruits, according to the Wall Street Journal. 'Over the past month, Meta has been aggressively building out their new AI effort, and has repeatedly (and mostly unsuccessfully) tried to recruit some of our strongest talent with comp-focused packages,' Chen wrote on Slack. A source close to the efforts at Meta confirmed the company has been significantly ramping up its research recruiting, with a particular eye toward talent from OpenAI and Google. Anthropic, while also a top rival, is thought to be less of a culture fit at Meta, one source tells WIRED. 'They haven't necessarily expanded the band, but for top talent, the sky is the limit,' the source says. Both OpenAI and Meta did not respond to requests for comment. Chen's note included messages from seven other research leaders at the company, where they wrote notes to staffers in an apparent effort to encourage them to stay. One leader on the research team encouraged staff to reach out if they received an offer from Meta: 'If they pressure you, or make ridiculous exploding offers just tell them to back off, it's not nice to pressure people in potentially the most important decision. WIRED is not naming the leader as they are not a C-suite executive. 'I'd like to be able to talk to you through it and I know all about their offers.' The remarks come as OpenAI staff grapple with an intense workload that has many staffers grinding 80-hours a week. OpenAI is largely shutting down next week as the company tries to give employees time to recharge, according to multiple sources. Executives are still planning to work, those same sources say. 'Meta knows we're taking this week to recharge and will take advantage of it to try and pressure you to make decisions fast and in isolation,' another leader at the company wrote, according to Chen's memo. 'If you're feeling that pressure don't be afraid to reach out. I and Mark are around and want to support you!' While OpenAI's leadership is taking Meta's efforts seriously, Chen also said that the company is getting 'too caught up in the cadence of regular product launches and in short term comparison with the competition.' The sentiment is backed by a former OpenAI staffer who worked closely with Altman and said the CEO wanted to see buzzy announcements every few months. Now, that appears to be changing in favor of focusing on achieving artificial general intelligence. 'We need to remain focused on the real prize of finding ways to compute (a lot more supercomputers are coming online later this year) into intelligence,' Chen wrote. 'This is the main quest, and it's important to remember that skirmishes with Meta are the side quest. Last but not least I'll be around this week - recharged and ready to go pound per pound. DM me anytime.' 'It's been really amazing to watch Mark's leadership and integrity through this process, especially when he has had to make tough decisions,' Altman wrote on Slack in response to Chen's message. 'Very grateful we have him as our leader!'
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Reforming Fannie and Freddie is just the first step
For nearly 17 years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — two pillars of the U.S. housing finance system — have remained under federal conservatorship. The debate over how to exit this limbo has consumed housing policy circles for over a decade. Most stakeholders now agree that reform is overdue. But even the best plan to restructure these institutions will fall short if it ends there. Fannie and Freddie matter. The government-sponsored enterprises guarantee nearly half of all new U.S. mortgages, ensuring liquidity in both good times and bad. They are also among the few institutions with a public mission to serve rural, low-income and historically underserved borrowers. Reimagining them as regulated utilities — with capped returns, cost-based pricing and clear service obligations — would bring transparency and durability to a system long overdue for a modern framework. But structure alone won't solve the affordability crisis gripping communities nationwide. Even perfectly governed Government-Sponsored Enterprises cannot close the gap between surging home prices and stagnating wages. Nor can they single-handedly fix the uneven access to credit or the persistent racial homeownership gap. The median U.S. home now costs over $420,000. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the nation faces a shortage of more than 7 million affordable rental homes. In many markets, even well-qualified buyers with stable incomes and decent credit are being priced out of the market. The gap between what families earn and what homes cost is no longer just wide — it's systemic. Without a broader effort, a restructured Fannie and Freddie would still be operating on top of a broken foundation. To truly modernize housing finance, we need to rethink how we underwrite risk, where we allow homes to be built, and who gets access to capital. A healthy system must go beyond liquidity. It must support housing production, economic inclusion and long-term market resilience. Here are three critical areas where policy must evolve: 1. Zoning and land use reform The Government-Sponsored Enterprises can't buy loans on homes that don't get built. In many cities, exclusionary zoning — such as minimum lot sizes, bans on multifamily units, and onerous parking requirements — chokes off the supply of new housing. While local governments control zoning, federal policy can provide powerful incentives. One approach is to link infrastructure or transportation grants to inclusive land-use reforms. Removing regulatory barriers to starter homes, townhouses and modular construction could unlock affordable housing supply without the need for new subsidies. 2. Credit Innovation for a changing workforce Today's credit models don't reflect how Americans live and work. Renters with flawless payment histories still struggle to build credit. Gig workers with steady earnings face outdated underwriting standards. Appraisals often undervalue modular and manufactured homes despite their key role in expanding affordability. Federal regulators should accelerate the development of alternative credit scoring models, expand underwriting pilots and recognize stable income sources beyond the traditional W-2. A modern credit system must reward reliability — not just conformity. 3. Equity through transparency The racial homeownership gap isn't closing on its own — it requires deliberate action. Any Government-Sponsored Enterprises reform must include strong data transparency on lending by race, income and geography. Public dashboards, equity benchmarks and stronger oversight should be part of the solution. If the Government-Sponsored Enterprises are to fulfill a public mission, their performance must be trackable, visible and grounded in outcomes — not aspirations. Fixing Fannie and Freddie is necessary — but it's not sufficient. These institutions are deeply ingrained in the core of America's housing and financial systems. Their influence extends from interest rates and loan terms to neighborhood stability and intergenerational wealth. Restructuring them without addressing the broader system would be a missed opportunity. Economists such as Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics and Jim Parrott of the Urban Institute have long supported a hybrid model: one that combines strong regulation with market participation. They argue that it's possible to balance broad access to mortgage credit with taxpayer protection. Their work affirms that reform doesn't require a false choice between efficiency and equity. We can — and must — pursue both. Recent public friction between Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is another reminder: Housing finance doesn't operate in isolation. Interest rate policy, inflation and credit markets all interact with the institutions that support the mortgage system. Reform must be built to withstand not only market volatility but also political and monetary turbulence. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped millions of Americans buy homes and weather economic downturns. But they can't fix zoning laws, modernize credit scoring or close the racial wealth gap on their own. Suppose we want a system that works not just in recovery but in resilience. In that case, we need a long-term vision — one that aligns public purpose with private capital and innovation with accountability. The next chapter of housing finance must be bigger than balance sheets. It must reflect the realities of today's economy and prepare for the demands of tomorrow's homebuyers. This isn't just about fixing what's broken. It's about building a housing finance system that works — for everyone. Omar Mbowe, Ph.D., MBA, is the Managing Partner of Auxilia Capital Partners, a New York–based real estate investment firm. He also serves as the executive director of the HED Initiative.
