3 ms·

I wonder if anyone will try to disrupt the wedding space. As things stand, it's very, very difficult to have a 200 - 300 person wedding under 10K. We rented a

I wonder if anyone will try to disrupt the wedding space. As things stand, it's very, very difficult to have a 200 - 300 person wedding under 10K. We rented a VFW Hall in an unsexy corner of town, did our own flower arrangements, got a dirt cheap but good dj (her website was literally something like cheapdj.com), had a friend make a cupcake smorgasboard, etc etc and I think everything came to around 14K for 250 guests. We have high income careers and had an amazing time, so the expense wasn't any kind of burden, but it's a shame to me that something like even our humble (albeit somewhat big and on a Saturday during peak season) wedding seems maybe out of the reach of a lot of middle class young people.

leetcrew 7y ago
no offense, but the idea that a 200-300 person party could even be considered a "humble" wedding is part of the problem. if I invited my entire family, my closest friends, and their plus ones, that's forty people (and a quarter of them are underage, so no alcohol). double that (assuming my spouse's friends don't overlap with mine) and you have eighty, which is already a lot of people for a party where food and drink are both provided. how do you even come up with 300 people who are genuinely enthusiastic about attending?
dagw 7y ago
The obvious 'disruption' is to simply not invite 200-300 people. Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty certain I can't even name 200 people that I've met.
- nottorp 7y ago
  I've had 50 people total, mine and hers... And this in spite of living in a culture where guests are supposed to give gifts that at least cover their part of the bill ;)
jerf 7y ago
It sounds like you approached the wedding from the perspective of "here's the checklist of amenities we need to provide our guests", which you modified by striving to ensure each line item was reasonably priced. Not a criticism - I did that to, and for both of us it seems to have been a financially responsible decision. However, for people for whom that isn't financially responsible, I'd suggest that that mentality isn't appropriate. The question shouldn't be "what do the guests absolutely require?", but "what can we afford? and what do we want?" In that order! The bare minimum for a wedding is a court wedding. There are some reasons why that may not be the best idea at scale (that is, it may be individually appropriate but there are social reasons why that's not ever going to be the only sort of wedding). From there, the next thing you need is somewhere to gather some people. Are you really obligated to feed them? Depends on the time you pick. Are you obligated to rent a hall rather than find somewhere you can go for free? I'd say not. Do you need flowers scaled to the number of guests? Not really need, no. etc. Given the ability of money issues to tear marriages apart, I'd say a new couple should strive quite hard to avoid debt for their wedding, and I'd say, get brutal with those costs. If social conventions are driving you into debt, screw social conventions. They were not, in the past, built for that purpose. To a non-trivial extent, they are built in the present for that purpose, and the answer to that is to not just decline to play, but to be angry at the people manipulating those conventions to put you in debt, just to ensure you stay in the right frame of mind. Plus if enough people do that, we can take them back. "If social conventions are driving you into debt, screw social conventions." has application well beyond this particular matter, too.
- 5555624 7y ago
  > but "what can we afford? and what do we want?" In that order! I'd switch the order. Once you decide what you want, then you cut or adjust expectations to fit your budget. Just make sure to set the budget before making decisions. For example, if you want live music at the reception, you find a musician(s) or band that fit your budget, without simply deciding you can't afford it.
dmschulman 7y ago
Having 250-300 people around for anything would be an expensive undertaking by any measure! Affordability is one thing, but should holding an event for a large group inherently become a race to the bottom? Hosting an event isn't simply like making a big purchase either, for most weddings there are a lot of staff involved (cooks, waiters, flower arrangers, cleaning staff, etc). Should their wages be cut in order to facilitate someone's dream wedding at a discount?
jedrek 7y ago
It's almost impossible to host any sort of event with 200-300 people for 3-5 hours for under 10k. Any venue that has room for 250 people + catering should not be doing it for less than $40 a person!

leetcrew 7y ago

no offense, but the idea that a 200-300 person party could even be considered a "humble" wedding is part of the problem. if I invited my entire family, my closest friends, and their plus ones, that's forty people (and a quarter of them are underage, so no alcohol). double that (assuming my spouse's friends don't overlap with mine) and you have eighty, which is already a lot of people for a party where food and drink are both provided. how do you even come up with 300 people who are genuinely enthusiastic about attending?

dagw 7y ago

The obvious 'disruption' is to simply not invite 200-300 people. Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty certain I can't even name 200 people that I've met.

nottorp 7y ago
I've had 50 people total, mine and hers... And this in spite of living in a culture where guests are supposed to give gifts that at least cover their part of the bill ;)

jerf 7y ago

It sounds like you approached the wedding from the perspective of "here's the checklist of amenities we need to provide our guests", which you modified by striving to ensure each line item was reasonably priced. Not a criticism - I did that to, and for both of us it seems to have been a financially responsible decision. However, for people for whom that isn't financially responsible, I'd suggest that that mentality isn't appropriate. The question shouldn't be "what do the guests absolutely require?", but "what can we afford? and what do we want?" In that order! The bare minimum for a wedding is a court wedding. There are some reasons why that may not be the best idea at scale (that is, it may be individually appropriate but there are social reasons why that's not ever going to be the only sort of wedding). From there, the next thing you need is somewhere to gather some people. Are you really obligated to feed them? Depends on the time you pick. Are you obligated to rent a hall rather than find somewhere you can go for free? I'd say not. Do you need flowers scaled to the number of guests? Not really need, no. etc. Given the ability of money issues to tear marriages apart, I'd say a new couple should strive quite hard to avoid debt for their wedding, and I'd say, get brutal with those costs. If social conventions are driving you into debt, screw social conventions. They were not, in the past, built for that purpose. To a non-trivial extent, they are built in the present for that purpose, and the answer to that is to not just decline to play, but to be angry at the people manipulating those conventions to put you in debt, just to ensure you stay in the right frame of mind. Plus if enough people do that, we can take them back. "If social conventions are driving you into debt, screw social conventions." has application well beyond this particular matter, too.

5555624 7y ago
> but "what can we afford? and what do we want?" In that order! I'd switch the order. Once you decide what you want, then you cut or adjust expectations to fit your budget. Just make sure to set the budget before making decisions. For example, if you want live music at the reception, you find a musician(s) or band that fit your budget, without simply deciding you can't afford it.

dmschulman 7y ago

Having 250-300 people around for anything would be an expensive undertaking by any measure! Affordability is one thing, but should holding an event for a large group inherently become a race to the bottom? Hosting an event isn't simply like making a big purchase either, for most weddings there are a lot of staff involved (cooks, waiters, flower arrangers, cleaning staff, etc). Should their wages be cut in order to facilitate someone's dream wedding at a discount?

jedrek 7y ago

It's almost impossible to host any sort of event with 200-300 people for 3-5 hours for under 10k. Any venue that has room for 250 people + catering should not be doing it for less than $40 a person!