pull down to refresh

Jeff Bezos—founder of Amazon and one of the wealthiest individuals in the world—has come under sharp criticism for purchasing a superyacht reportedly worth $500 million. For many, the scale of this project has become a symbol of the inequality and excesses of the ultra-wealthy. Critics argue that such extravagance is tone-deaf in a world struggling with poverty, unemployment, and environmental crises. However, this perspective often overlooks a vital truth. Superyachts like Bezos’s are not merely luxury assets; they are powerful drivers of economic activity. Far from being a vanity project, such vessels fuel job creation, industry growth, and generate income for ordinary people.
The superyacht industry represents a significant and growing segment of the global economy. It encompasses everything from construction and refit to maintenance, operations, and tourism services. Each of these areas supports a wide network of industries and professionals. In 2022, the global superyacht market was valued at $2.7 billion, with projections expecting it to grow to $4.4 billion by 2030. This expansion is supported by a rising number of high-net-worth individuals and a growing interest in marine tourism.
The construction of a superyacht is an immensely labor-intensive endeavor. It requires the expertise of engineers, designers, electricians, metalworkers, interior decorators, and project managers, among many others. A study by Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam for the Superyacht Builders Association (SYBAss) found that the global fleet of superyachts over 30 meters required more than a million labor years to build, contributing almost 43 billion euros in wages worldwide. On average, each superyacht requires more than 9.5 million euros in labor costs for construction alone. Once a yacht is completed and enters service, it continues to support a wide array of jobs. Annual operational, maintenance, and refit costs for the superyacht fleet were estimated at 11.3 billion euros. These costs reflect recurring economic activity and include crew salaries, marina fees, fuel, repairs, and a wide range of service contracts.
Superyachts employ full-time crews ranging from 7 to 30 people depending on the vessel’s size. Positions can include captain, engineer, chef, housekeeper, deckhand, and even specialists such as dive instructors or spa therapists. This level of employment is consistent throughout the year, regardless of whether the yacht is in use by its owner. Onshore businesses also benefit as these vessels dock at marinas across the world. Restaurants, shops, suppliers, and transport services all receive a share of the spending that accompanies these high-value visitors.
The economic benefits extend even further into the tourism sector. According to a 2023 World Bank study, yacht tourists spend an average of $287 per person per day—nearly double the $162 spent by general leisure tourists in Spain. This high per capita spending supports local economies through luxury tourism, provisioning, transportation, excursions, and high-end hospitality. Countries that have embraced yacht tourism as a strategic growth sector offer compelling evidence of its benefits. In Auckland, New Zealand, superyacht visitation generated a value add of $89 million in 2017 and supported the equivalent of 1,780 jobs. In Tahiti, superyachts brought in $28 million in 2018, and Australia reported an estimated $100 million in superyacht-related spending in 2020.
Developing countries have also recognized the potential. Cabo Verde—an island nation off the coast of West Africa—has conducted in-depth analysis of its yachting sector. The World Bank found that targeted investment in marina infrastructure and regulatory reform could raise yacht tourism revenues to as high as $146 million annually. This projection is based on a strategic development scenario that includes upgrades in São Vicente, Sal, and Santiago, alongside improved customs procedures and marketing initiatives.
Critics often argue that superyachts are wasteful expressions of personal excess, disconnected from real-world value creation. While the optics may be controversial, the economic reality tells a different story. Money spent on yachts does not disappear—it is distributed throughout a wide network of labor, services, and industries. Every dollar spent helps pay the wages of shipbuilders, engineers, marina staff, chefs, drivers, tour operators, and hospitality workers.
Environmental concerns—another frequent criticism—are also being taken seriously by industry stakeholders. Many new yachts are adopting hybrid propulsion systems, sustainable materials, and advanced waste treatment technologies. Countries such as Cabo Verde are incorporating environmental protections into their yacht tourism strategies, including sewage disposal regulations, marine conservation measures, and careful development of marinas in ecologically sensitive zones.
Rather than condemning Bezos’s expenditure as unnecessary, a more constructive view acknowledges how such a luxury goods represents countless voluntary exchanges. The $500 million spent on his yacht flows into hundreds of businesses and thousands of households. Countries that position themselves as yacht-friendly—by investing in infrastructure, easing regulations, and marketing their destinations—can capture this economic potential.
Jeff Bezos’s $500 million yacht is more than a personal indulgence. It is a floating asset that drives growth in global shipbuilding, hospitality, and tourism sectors. It supports thousands of jobs and channels billions in capital into both developed and developing economies. When viewed in the context of the broader superyacht industry, Bezos’s yacht is not a symbol of waste—it is an engine of opportunity.
Yep, lots of opportunity for lots of people and Jeff Bezos can even enjoy ocean trips in all the spare time that he has. I wonder if these superyachts have the same sort of environmental friendliness as the current green fad: windmills. Windmills were considered environmentally friendly until it comes time to build them and then get rid of them. Not so friendly, then, when closely examined. I hope he really likes his new toy, it might even be better than a rocket!
Wait, wait. Isn't this a version of Bastiat's Broken Window? i.e. Economic activity in service of an end that has no value.
(I'm not claiming whether or not Bezos's yacht has any value. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of pointing to generated economic activity as an end in itself.)
reply
The broken window fallacy is wrong because there's no value in diverting activity towards fixing a window that didn't need to be broken.
Bezos' consumption of leisure isn't analogous to the window, because it didn't already exist absent that economic activity.
reply
Got it. The fallacy in the broken window fallacy is "we should break this perfectly good window in order to generate economic activity," which is clearly a fallacy
I still maintain that there's a flavor of this. It's kinda like if a billionaire decides to privately fund the construction of a bridge to nowhere. We all understand why it's bad if the government decides to do that, but if a billionaire does that it's ok because it's a private choice? A lot of weight is being hung on the private surplus of said billionaire.
reply
Yes! The revealed preference of voluntary exchange is the difference.
Extremely wealthy people can afford extravagant excesses and there's no accounting for taste.
reply
Extremely wealthy people can afford extravagant excesses and there's no accounting for taste.
I think this crystallizes one of my main gripes with economists.
It's true that there's no accounting for tastes, and therefore we don't account for it in our measures of surplus which (rightly) try to import as few subjective assumptions as possible.
But saying that something increases economic surplus, broadly defined, is not the same thing as saying this is good. When people write articles defending Jeff Bezos's yacht as morally good, I just think it rings hollow to most people and it makes economists look like dicks.
I think I'd say something like, "I don't think this is the best use of resources, but Bezos has the right to spend his lawfully obtained wealth how he wants, and look it does employ a lot of people and grow the economy in all these ways. So even if I don't particularly like it, I can't really argue with it. What would you rather do? Tell people what they can and can't spend their money on?"
They'd probably go into some rant about how billionaires shouldn't exist, but then we can talk about how Bezos's wealth was obtained in the process of real value creation.
reply
That's a completely fair perspective. Obviously, we are each entitled to our personal normative assessments of how resources are deployed and are under no obligation to approve of how any spends their money.
I think the point of articles like this is to point out that Bezos is transferring his purchasing power to a whole bunch of people who make his yachting possible. One way or another, that purchasing power belongs to Bezos and is his to transfer to others on whatever terms he wants.
The question then is whether those recipients of Bezos' wealth are particularly less deserving than anyone else.
it makes economists look like dicks.
Can’t disagree with that. Trying to be morally neutral does make people look like dicks no matter who they are. Sometimes, you just have to say something about some of this isht.
And there is nothing we can do about it, even if we wanted to do something. They can do what they want, and I don’t care! It is economic use of resources.
reply
If it's not an economic use of resources that would have to come from how the wealth was obtained in the first place.
You betcha!!! Actually, it feels good sometimes and definitely gets some peoples blood pumping!
reply
We all understand why it's bad if the government decides to do that, but if a billionaire does that it's ok because it's a private choice?
A waste of resources is a waste of resources, no matter which way you cut it. However, if a billionaire decides to waste his own resources, isn’t that a free choice he can make? If he makes too many of those kinds of choices, he will not remain wealthy for long, will he? Perhaps this is why we say, “Rags to riches to rags in three generations!”
reply
Just sayin’, he must really value, very highly, his consumption of leisure! That is slightly beyond my imagination, but, then again, I didn’t start Amazon with my wife, either.
reply
It seems crazy to us because our budget constraints are so different than his. Who knows what kinds of crazy shit we would do with that kind of purchasing power.
reply
Well, there are some things that I would like to do, but not to that scale, not even close to that scale. Although, he did do a nice production of.a rocket ship trip for us to see! Again, he sure must love his entertainment!
reply
50 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 14h
Sure seems that way to me.
reply
Something that exists being maliciously destroyed and replaced may be a far different case from using a ton of money to buy entertainment de novo.
reply
The yacht is being produced and staffed de novo. It is not replacing something that was there but maliciously broken. Perhaps, if you asked Bezos, the yacht has an immense value as demonstrated by his choice demonstrated preference. He saw more value in the yacht than in $500 million! His money, his choice. He must really value his entertainment highly!
reply
His money his choice? He just enjoys the surpluses provided to him by human labor.
One problem yet to be solved in human society is who benefits from the spoils.
Unchecked greed is often celebrated and as soon as someone criticizes it they ate slapped with the communist label
reply
Greed is one of the easiest things to slap on a person, isn’t it? Easy to throw that around. I wonder what he was doing the first five years of Amazon’s founding. He was the entrepreneur, he deserves to get paid for it.
Everyone can perceive extravagant waste and greed, is everyone, therefore, communist? No, I don’t think so, only regular people.
reply
Not saying he doesn’t deserve to be paid but how much money does one man need?
reply
Money is fake anyway, who cares.
Perplexity :D :
Ratio Comparison • Bezos’ wealth is more than a million times greater than the net worth of a median U.S. household. • To put it simply: Bezos’ net worth is so high that his $500 million yacht is a much smaller fraction of his wealth than a typical car is for a median U.S. family. • For a typical family, a $30,000 car could be 15% (or more) of their net worth. • For Bezos, the $500 million yacht is only about 0.2% of his total net worth.
That is like asking how high is the sky! Or what’s the limit in a large poker game. I wonder if he had a limit at all.
10 sats \ 6 replies \ @fiatbad 15h
Strategic placement of wind-power can be a game-changer in many areas. It's just a tool in the energy toolbox. Just like Bitcoin. It's not a panacea, but it's a game changer when deployed correctly.
What's your beef with wind power?
reply
What's your beef with wind power?
It is the ultimate in environmental harm. To build it is uneconomical and uses much more resources than other power generation methods. It is a total hazard once the life of the windmills are defunct. You cannot “reclaim or recycle” very much of the structures. It kills too many birds and, in the ocean, cetaceans. It is a waste of money. It is a scam. It is just hooked into the metered power system. It has a few problems, doesn’t it?
reply
433 sats \ 4 replies \ @fiatbad 14h
I think most of the "problems" come from political propaganda.
Everything has pros and cons, and comes with a risk/reward analysis. ALL energy sources on the planet come with negative trade-offs. Political propaganda ignores the tradeoffs and just focuses on whichever pro or con supports their narrative.
What are the numbers for "reclaiming and recycling" parts from coal, fossil-fuels, nuclear, or solar? Way more difficult to recycle that shit. Wildlife is negatively affected by all of them as well.
Remember how brainwashed society was in the 90's about how nuclear power would create mutant animals? Absolutely nuts.... which is how you sound, talking about birds and cetaceans.
Nuclear power is absolutely amazing, and it was suppressed for decades because of political propaganda. Don't let the same thing happen to wind. That said, nuclear is 10x more important than wind. It is base-load, wind is not. But we should not demonize wind in the meantime. It's pretty damn good, with very minimal impact compared to the alternatives. If I see people trying to use wind as base-load, then I will speak out against them.... but adding small amounts of wind to grids around the world is very smart.
reply
20 sats \ 3 replies \ @nolem 10h
Nuclear power is absolutely amazing, and it was suppressed for decades because of political propaganda.
Literally could exchange Bitcoin for nuclear in this quote (with the banking elite, quietly lobbying government)
reply
Yes, there is a lot of suppression by the ELite going on here and everywhere else. They particularly like to suppress any technology that would disrupt the thing they have going now. Or, anything that would cut into their receipts of the goodies they steal.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @nolem 10h
1000% exactly! Well put
His money, his choices.
reply