Right but you can just move the poor elderly people to all of the empty space we have on Earth rather than Venus cloud cities

It sounds like the big benefit of Venus cloud cities as a retirement destination is the lower (0.9g) gravity, plus possibly distance from problems on Earth, so it wouldn't be a destination for poor elderly people, but rather rich ones (esp. ones who don't care about visiting with family).

I imagine it would resemble a giant cruise ship, with luxurious surroundings, plenty of stuff for older people to do, etc. Of course, there would be a very large crew/staff aboard to clean and maintain it and provide services, such as medical care. Salaries for the staff would have to be huge, since they wouldn't be able to go home for years, and gigs on this floating city would probably be contracted fixed-length terms, similar to Saudi Aramco workers, so prices to live in this city would be enormous, making it something only very wealthy retirees could afford.

Considering the view would be pretty boring after a while, and the prices astronomical, it's hard to believe that 0.9g gravity would be enough of a draw to make this project economically viable.

Distance from Earth seems like a huge downside, not a benefit. Even if our climate goes to shit it will still be far more livable than Venus.

So, as you say, there's only one benefit, 0.9g, and is that really enough to justify this entire thing?

To be honest it seems like people are clutching at straws to justify space colonisation

Distance from Earth would be a benefit in case of nuclear war, which currently looks highly likely at some point. Even if humans aren't eradicated, it would probably be a civilization-ending event, and not many places would be safe. However, it does seem like some kind of giant submarine might be more feasible and cheaper.

But yeah, 0.9g doesn't seem like enough of a draw to make it economically feasible.

> it would probably be a civilization-ending event, and not many places would be safe

But you need a civilisation on Earth in order to maintain a Venus cloud city anyway

That's absolutely correct I believe. I don't see how such a colony would be self-sustaining without some big advances in technology (at which point you might as well just build a space habitat with low gravity).

Yeah, but sadly anyplace we can send a bunch of humans to, we can figure out how to send a nuke to as well. And if leaders on the homeworld are crazy enough to turn Earth into a wasteland, I'm not sure how confident I'd be they wouldn't point their threat at your colony (which might look like an enticing bargaining chip).

Bargaining chip for what exactly? The colony wouldn't have any kind of resources, except the wealth of its residents, but that wealth would all be tied up in bank accounts back on Earth. If Earth gets turned into a wasteland, the colony will probably die because I don't see how it could possibly survive without regular supply missions from Earth, and that depends on things on Earth not getting too horrible. Also, if Earth became a literal wasteland, all the wealth those rich people on Venus had would be gone: it's just numbers in computers after all.

Bargaining chip as in "We'll raze the last hope for humanity unless you yield concession X".

You're not answering the question. What concession? What do a bunch of old people in the clouds of Venus have to bargain with? What resources do they control?

They aren't bargaining with the colony, they're bargaining with the nation that sent its citizens there (or any nation that views the survival of the colony as important enough to make other concessions).

It's like a criminal that points a gun at your kid and threatens to shoot unless you do X.