"A" yacht - a video of the interior

Actually Manie these really big boats stay quite active unless the owner is in financial trouble. They cross the Atlantic twice a year at least, Caribbean winter, Mediterranean summer, South of France one weekend, Greece the next, then to Venice and on. The owner and his friends fly to meet the boat wherever she is. They put on a lot of engine hours and huge generator hours.

But I have a theory......I've often heard the "trickle down" justification for these big boats. They create jobs and economic activity. I've been directly involved in building big yachts, though not this big by any means. The direct employment is rather small, less than 100 people for a $30m three year project. Ongoing direct employment for that boat is 6 crew plus 1-2, full time jobs.....it's not much.

So my theory is that if Mr. Melnichenko took his reported $300m and instead of building A, gave 1200 of his closest friends a $250k yacht......the economic activity would be far greater. Of course I have no statistics to back this theory and perhaps it's baloney but I don't think so. The money would go directly to hundreds (assuming the 1200 all don't end up with Beneteaus) of small boatbuilders, outfitters, chandlers, marinas, etc. rather than to the shareholders of ThyssenKrupp.

Think of it in terms of beer. Mr. Melnichenko and his half-dozen friends can only drink a couple cases of beer over a weekend. But 1200 guys taking 2 buddies out fishing on the same weekend will go though one large mountain of beer....and some of it might be the good stuff........

 

Are you saying the 100 mined and refined the alloy used? Formed the plates?
Implying the 100 took the raw materials and spun the yarn and wove the carpet?

Of course not. The money "trickled down" from the customer, to the prime contractor, then on to the subcontractors and out to the suppliers, where it bought their alloy plate, glass, fixtures, electronics, wiring harnesses, etc. From there, it also went out to the local Diners, clothing stores, bars, strip clubs, dope dealers, car dealerships, doctors and so forth. That is how "trickle down" works. Well, that is how a market economy works.

Quite likely, many of those 1200 guys own, if not shares of ThyssenKrupp, then shares in mines, flooring, glass companies, etc. Shares of which increased in value, by some amount, by filling the orders made by the builders of the yacht.

The only argument I see here is who actually profits from the market infusion of $300m. As a general observation, that argument seems on most occasions to reflect a person's particular position in a market and whether a given infusion helps them out or not.

 

All sensible comments. So the ultra-rich should be allowed to pollute (imagine the fuel it takes just to build one of those yachts). So that us little people like us can have our jobs.
By that reasoning everything rich people do spending their money is okay because some lower class person gets some of the money. Sounds like the days of the Titanic, when the world really was like that.
But really, their percentages are too small to matter. I don't think the whole industry is supported by a few rich guys.

 

If the design and construction of the yacht was $300 million, then that is $300 million that would otherwise not have been spent in the marine industry. The standard rule of thumb for the ongoing cost of running a large yacht is around 10% - or $30 million - per annum. So, over ten years, this one vessel will creat around $600 million dollars of economic activity. And that is just one boat... it is very easy to have the cloud of jealousy warp ones appreciation of the contribution a yacht like this can have on the lives of others.
For those who would argue that it is an unfair use of finite resources, you are probably right... but hey - life is unfair. And I reiterate that if you are serious about your stance then you should lead by example and give up all the trappings that modern civilisation has bestowed upon your own lifestyle before you go lecturing others.

 

I don't know what's so special about working on a giant boat compared to say, building a Las Vegas hotel. A few select people might enjoy a bit of challenge or creativity but by and large, I see nothing special about the marine industry if by definition it means working on something that will go on the water.
I do see value in work such as building a 100k wooden yacht for a regular person. Or even something bigger if it involves yacht trades if that means a job where you get immense satisfaction out of the work.
As far as this 300 million dollar thing goes, it is much more hotel than yacht and most all of that money will go to people who either have nothing to do with the building of boats and factory workers who manufacture materials such as plastic, steel, and aluminum.
I get what you're saying but you seem only to be able to see things from the perspective of a person who is supported by the marine industry. Believe me, those people for the most part would be happy working on construction sites building offices and hotels. They are not a "special breed". Only a very few people actually work on boats because they love boats. They would have work even if multi-billionaires decided never to go to sea again.
and I would assume that if the very rich were taxed like the rest of us they might have to downsize to the kind of boat we understand--- the kind that is built by hand by real boatbuilders.

 

I agree 100% -I attend several races each year,and if it weren't for F1 we wouldn't be seeing the massive increase in power,durability,and efficiency in today's cars.

A modern 3.5l engine puts out as much hp and the car gets 30% better fuel economy as a 5 litre did not 10-12 years ago.
A 3.5 turbo does the same as a 6 litre v12 of the same era...and all with a tiny fraction of the emissions.
Myself-I can't wait for the return of the turbos to F1.

I don't have the biggest boat around,but it's does me well. Have gotten grief from passersby about 1300 hp.They don't like it much when I point out the fact that I use less fuel in a year than they do,while pointing to their SUV- in a city where 4WD is rarely needed.

 

Well, I absolutley agree with you on the taxation front....everyone should pay their fair share. To my mind a flat-rate is the only way to go, but that's by-the-by.
I also agree that most who build large yachts - in fact the vast majority of boats regardless of size - are 'factory workers'. BUT... of course there are limited numbers of jobs in any and every sector. The notion that they should all get jobs in one that aligns more closely with one person's take on the environmental impact of a particular industry sector is somewhat naive IMHO. As an example, we are currently seeing the decimation of my home state's economy as a direct result of the economic vandalism that is being practised by self-proclaimed "green groups" all in the name of supposedly (and mis-guidedly) "saving the environment". Their answer to all of the lost forestry, mining, fisheries, etc, etc, jobs is that we should all be working in the eco-tourism sector... No matter that tourism can't support those who are already in it, nor the fact that every time a developer tries to invest in any sort of tourism venture, they are chased off by a bunch of ignorant, loud-mouthed and ill-informed enviro-zealots.
So, in my mind, it's not as simple as they should be doing something else... because there are only so many something-else jobs.

 

Anyway, it's all good.

 

Could be worse - try building *anything* in a suburban back yard in Sydney, for example. At least here people mostly still leave you alone. Well, my neighbours do anyway, I think it comes under the MAD principle and you can take that any way you like.

Greenies - I do *so* hope they froze in the dark the last couple of nights. A wattle tree took out the power lines here. Bloody weeds but are you allowed to cut them down? No. Perhaps the Greens should take action against Hughie.

PDW