3 ms·

What annoys me about this isn't that it's Bezos building a ridiculous yacht. Eat the rich and all that aside, let's talk about the arrogance of Oceanco. They k

by mabbo 5y ago

What annoys me about this isn't that it's Bezos building a ridiculous yacht. Eat the rich and all that aside, let's talk about the arrogance of Oceanco. They knew the height of the bridge. They knew the planned height of the yacht. The started building anyway without first asking. They simply presumed they could get what they wanted. How? Well the article explains how very well. > He added: "From an economic perspective and maintaining employment, the municipality considers this a very important project." The veiled threat being "Oh, you like having jobs here? Would be a shame if something happened to that." And of course they could just not put the mast on here, and do it elsewhere, but: > it was "not practical" to partially finish the vessel and complete the build elsewhere. "If you carry out a big job somewhere, you want all your tools in that place. Otherwise you have to go back and forth constantly. In addition, this is such a large project that there are hardly any locations where this work is finished." IE: We do have other places we could do this work, but just not as cheaply as we can do it here, by inconveniencing the local population for days by removing their bridge. And Rotterdam will probably do what they say. Because they're right- the corporations do control them this way.

fastball 5y ago
Well either the jobs are worth it or they are not. This actually does seem like a clear cut case of "if you won't do this for us we can't keep building here".
riddleronroof 5y ago
Yeah agreed. They should pay for the bridge’s removal/construction.
- GrumpyNl 5y ago
  The yacht builder will pay for dismantling and rebuilding the bridge.
- unmole 5y ago
  > They should pay for the bridge’s removal/construction. Oceano and Bezos will reimburse the costs: https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/02/rotterdam-bridge-taken-apart-let-jeff-bezos-pleasure-yacht https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/02/rotterdam-bridge-taken-apart-l... This is much ado about nothing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jakobbuis 5y ago
The bridge is an historical artifact, it isn't used as a bridge.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>IE: We do have other places we could do this work, but just not as cheaply as we can do it here, by inconveniencing the local population for days by removing their bridge. The bridge is a monument and does not carry traffic. If it did carry traffic they would almost certainly have said no or required it be an overnight job. Overnight temporary removal of infrastructure like that is common in the world of hauling very bulky industrial things.
unwind 5y ago
I agree with all of that, but on the other hand doesn't Oceanco have some pressure on it to actually deliver the product? If Rotterdam's government went all "sure we'll hack the bridge for you, but it's going to cost €15 million, and we need to know 3 months in advance" or whatever [1], I wouldn't expect Oceanco to go "no way, we're moving out, you can say bye-bye to N jobs and some high-profile on-brand industry presence" because then the actual customer paying Oceanco €450M or whatever will be like "cough cough excuse us, but where is our yacht?". I imagine the contract-breaching fines on not delivering a yacht in this price range are in the "hefty+" range. Right? (Edited for brevity believe it or not.) [1] Numbers taken straight from the air, I know nothing. I've been to Rotterdam vacationing for one day, built zero luxury yachts.
yummybear 5y ago
I think it's wrong to think of this as society vs. corporations. This is a case of society helping a corporation, because it's beneficial to both.
YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
> E: We do have other places we could do this work, but just not as cheaply as we can do it here, by inconveniencing the local population for days by removing their bridge No not really. My father works for a company that builds large yachts company in the UK. He has built yachts for F1 drivers and team owners for the last 20 odd years. These yachts while large aren't on this size and it is true that the number of places where this work can be done is limited (there are literally only a few places left in the UK itself). With something of this size there is probably only a few places where it can be done in the whole of Europe if not the entire world. You are assuming the worst intentions here. > And Rotterdam will probably do what they say. Because they're right- the corporations do control them this way. The number of jobs that were provided by building this large yacht probably has enriched everyone in the city. Working people understand the trade-off. EDIT: Other people have noted that the bridge itself doesn't carry traffic.

by mabbo 5y ago

fastball 5y ago

Well either the jobs are worth it or they are not. This actually does seem like a clear cut case of "if you won't do this for us we can't keep building here".

riddleronroof 5y ago

Yeah agreed. They should pay for the bridge’s removal/construction.

GrumpyNl 5y ago
The yacht builder will pay for dismantling and rebuilding the bridge.
unmole 5y ago
> They should pay for the bridge’s removal/construction. Oceano and Bezos will reimburse the costs: https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/02/rotterdam-bridge-taken-apart-let-jeff-bezos-pleasure-yacht https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/02/rotterdam-bridge-taken-apart-l... This is much ado about nothing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jakobbuis 5y ago

The bridge is an historical artifact, it isn't used as a bridge.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>IE: We do have other places we could do this work, but just not as cheaply as we can do it here, by inconveniencing the local population for days by removing their bridge. The bridge is a monument and does not carry traffic. If it did carry traffic they would almost certainly have said no or required it be an overnight job. Overnight temporary removal of infrastructure like that is common in the world of hauling very bulky industrial things.

unwind 5y ago

I agree with all of that, but on the other hand doesn't Oceanco have some pressure on it to actually deliver the product? If Rotterdam's government went all "sure we'll hack the bridge for you, but it's going to cost €15 million, and we need to know 3 months in advance" or whatever [1], I wouldn't expect Oceanco to go "no way, we're moving out, you can say bye-bye to N jobs and some high-profile on-brand industry presence" because then the actual customer paying Oceanco €450M or whatever will be like "cough cough excuse us, but where is our yacht?". I imagine the contract-breaching fines on not delivering a yacht in this price range are in the "hefty+" range. Right? (Edited for brevity believe it or not.) [1] Numbers taken straight from the air, I know nothing. I've been to Rotterdam vacationing for one day, built zero luxury yachts.

yummybear 5y ago

I think it's wrong to think of this as society vs. corporations. This is a case of society helping a corporation, because it's beneficial to both.

YEwSdObPQT 5y ago

> E: We do have other places we could do this work, but just not as cheaply as we can do it here, by inconveniencing the local population for days by removing their bridge No not really. My father works for a company that builds large yachts company in the UK. He has built yachts for F1 drivers and team owners for the last 20 odd years. These yachts while large aren't on this size and it is true that the number of places where this work can be done is limited (there are literally only a few places left in the UK itself). With something of this size there is probably only a few places where it can be done in the whole of Europe if not the entire world. You are assuming the worst intentions here. > And Rotterdam will probably do what they say. Because they're right- the corporations do control them this way. The number of jobs that were provided by building this large yacht probably has enriched everyone in the city. Working people understand the trade-off. EDIT: Other people have noted that the bridge itself doesn't carry traffic.