Will the 2022 Recession affect CCL cruise fares?

[Lane Hog]

4 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

I think Big Oil could produce more but they choose not to. 

It doesn't help to extract it if you can't refine it. 

It is likely easier to build a nuclear power plant than it is to build a new refinery or expand an existing one.

[bamaone]

1 hour ago, firefly333 said:

All this talk of oil here, a subject I follow closely. Anyone watch the cnbc special inside exxon. 3 board members got elected to their board anti oil who are trying to shut down oil. Another issue is no new refineries have  been built here in over 40 years. One of the remaining got converted in 2020 so capacity is even tighter. 

 

One of the biggest issues with the green thinkers is that they don't actually think. They have no idea how many things depend on fossil fuels (petroleum) that we use in our everyday lives. A barrel of oil is broken down into many different products. Each barrel gives specific quantities of those products. In other words you can't produce one without the other. So if you reduce gasoline production, you also have to reduce every other product made from a barrel of oil by the same percentages. Click on the link and see for yourself.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/video-of-the-day-life-without-petroleum-based-products/

Edited July 29, 2022 by bamaone

[Out of Iowa]

For those of us who live a very long way from even our nearest port, higher airfare costs and still-high gas prices make a cruise less enticing.  Cruising is certainly not going to become a regular vacation in these times.  And that makes me very sad.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Out of Iowa
typo

[Tippyton]

17 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

The answer is yes and no. Not all the stars are aligned. Pick your definition and you can make a case either way.

Special Economic Operation.  FTFY

[Joebucks]

2 hours ago, ChC said:

The truth is, US has a huge employment imbalance. What you saw in hiring signs are all traditionally lower income jobs (fast food, restaurant, retail...). The labour force are leaving this sector in mass because the income can no longer support the rent, living expenses and commuting.

 

The "rent and expense" line is an absolute sham. It is just regurgitating popular political victim speak. Travel and other luxury spend has been absolutely through the roof. Sure housing prices are up, but that isn't telling the whole story. Skilled trades are having shortages. Even in a restaurant, you can make solid wages (whole avoiding paying taxes). Before the pandemic, these entry-level jobs were paying a lot less. Yet we didn't have this shortage.

 

The pandemic was a turning point for a lot of people. When you get people hip to getting money for free, do you think they are going to give it up? Free housing, food, spending money, phones, unemployment, healthcare, etc. Then you can just fill in the gaps with gig work like uber or doordash, working when you want.

 

If you can get it all easier, why would you want these other entry-level jobs? Working undesirable schedules, touting the company propaganda, dealing with Karens. They wouldn't. That's the problem. They don't want to work these jobs, and don't need to. Unfortunately, we all need people to work these jobs.

 

The usual internet-friendly lines of "they just need to pay more" isn't the fix. They are already paying historically high wages. In fact, wages need to start going down if we want to address inflation. You don't fix high costs by increasing costs. Less government aid and more job automation will help bring the job market in line.

[J0Y0US]

3 hours ago, Joebucks said:

The usual internet-friendly lines of "they just need to pay more" isn't the fix.

 

The "issue" is that people in various service jobs are being paid more, are more likely to have access to healthcare, and can avoid working 2/3 jobs as they can afford (at least for now) the ability to work 1 job.

 

Everyone always loves "oh you think they will give up free money". People are still working and we are back to pre-pandemic total employee levels. This is as new worker entry slows (population growth has been on the decline since 1994) and retirement age population explodes (almost doubling from 2010 to 2030).

 

This all adds up to less working hours to spread around to jobs.

 

I would also say quite a few businesses were bailed out by COVID that should have closed or went bankrupt as well since they could get loans they normally wouldn't have access to or they shut their doors extending their closure date out in to the future further since they would not run out of capital as quickly.

 

Businesses are just way behind in streamlining their service jobs but Walmart is taking strides as an example as they increase the number of self service registers across the US. McDonlads has put in self ordering kiosks in more places is another example of little things to reduce the requirement for workforce letting them pay more to fewer employees.

[TheSeagoer]

2 hours ago, J0Y0US said:

 

The "issue" is that people in various service jobs are being paid more, are more likely to have access to healthcare, and can avoid working 2/3 jobs as they can afford (at least for now) the ability to work 1 job.

 

Everyone always loves "oh you think they will give up free money". People are still working and we are back to pre-pandemic total employee levels. This is as new worker entry slows (population growth has been on the decline since 1994) and retirement age population explodes (almost doubling from 2010 to 2030).

 

This all adds up to less working hours to spread around to jobs.

 

I would also say quite a few businesses were bailed out by COVID that should have closed or went bankrupt as well since they could get loans they normally wouldn't have access to or they shut their doors extending their closure date out in to the future further since they would not run out of capital as quickly.

 

Businesses are just way behind in streamlining their service jobs but Walmart is taking strides as an example as they increase the number of self service registers across the US. McDonlads has put in self ordering kiosks in more places is another example of little things to reduce the requirement for workforce letting them pay more to fewer employees.

There are currently 2 jobs for every one job seeker🤦

[J0Y0US]

1 hour ago, TheSeagoer said:

There are currently 2 jobs for every one job seeker🤦

 

And?????

 

I outlined some of the reasoning and very very little of it has to do with a very small part of the population choosing to take "free money" as was suggested up thread.

 

You are looking at a workforce that is equal to 2019 as far as size. Businesses can adapt or die just like they have for the past 10, 100, 1000 years.

 

Are certain businesses lacking employees? Yes and the easiest way to plug that gap is to raise the pay to lure employees from competitors or from other industries. A harder option is to automate or streamline processes to reduce the required worker count.

 

But sure its those "free loaders" who are just taking "Free housing, food, spending money, phones, unemployment, healthcare, etc." that completely make up that gap (look at the numbers its not because again we are at 2019 levels of working individuals in the US). It comes down to people finally getting a living wage and not needing to work multiple jobs.

 

As an example in 2019 you had between 8.5%-9% of working Americans holding multiple jobs that plummeted to 4.6% at the end of 2021. That is between 6-7m "missing" workers which causes roughly a 4% shortage of workforce. 

 

In 2019 there were 7m-7.2m job opening we are sitting at roughly 11.4m job openings right now. That means you are short an additional 4m employees which is less than the "missing" workers. Force everyone who was working two jobs before the pandemic to take up a 2nd job again and you would eliminate the job gap plus some.

 

To note I am not saying to force anyone to take a 2nd job I am happy people can live of a single job instead of needing 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. Business will adapt or die and better business models will replace them (restaurants as an example are not going anywhere).

Edited July 30, 2022 by J0Y0US

[cruisingguy007]

8 hours ago, Joebucks said:

The usual internet-friendly lines of "they just need to pay more" isn't the fix. They are already paying historically high wages. In fact, wages need to start going down if we want to address inflation. You don't fix high costs by increasing costs. Less government aid and more job automation will help bring the job market in line.

 

Why is it only "free market forces" (aka capitalism) when it comes to higher paying jobs? Why should any employer/industry be supplied with cheap labor/imported illegal labor? I'm glad blue collar folks are finally getting some get back. I still remember when folks used to laugh at all the landscapers and constructions folks who were replaced with imported cheap labor, they were told they were "low skill", should work two-jobs (lower their standards) and/or should get a computer/technology job; then the technology jobs started importing cheap labor (or outsourcing it) and then it was "not fair". The same people who used to laugh got a taste of their own medicine. Most people can be replaced by cheaper workers, even many good paying jobs, there aren't many jobs that someone else couldn't do. People would do well to remember the quote from Martin Niemöller "first they came for the". Either capitalism works or it doesn't: Yes, they just need to pay more, supply and demand. Pay, do it yourself or go out of business, no one has any "right" to cheap labor or a subservient class. That, or admit capitalism doesn't work in its purist form without socialist intervention to keep the charade alive.    

[BlerkOne]

15 minutes ago, cruisingguy007 said:

 

 That, or admit capitalism doesn't work in its purist form without socialist intervention to keep the charade alive.    

Or course capitalism works unless a fascist steps in.  Higher wages will, of course, lead to some jobs being exported, because capitalism works.

[Moviela]

I saw this show before in the late 70's. Bad policies inflated the money at an astronomical rate. Gasoline tripled, real estate interest went to 18%, groceries doubled, and everyone suffered from stagflation.

 

In 2021 history repeats itself. Expect all transportation and hospitality to increase at 1.4x the rate of inflation.

[Joebucks]

11 hours ago, cruisingguy007 said:

 

Why is it only "free market forces" (aka capitalism) when it comes to higher paying jobs? Why should any employer/industry be supplied with cheap labor/imported illegal labor? I'm glad blue collar folks are finally getting some get back. I still remember when folks used to laugh at all the landscapers and constructions folks who were replaced with imported cheap labor, they were told they were "low skill", should work two-jobs (lower their standards) and/or should get a computer/technology job; then the technology jobs started importing cheap labor (or outsourcing it) and then it was "not fair". The same people who used to laugh got a taste of their own medicine. Most people can be replaced by cheaper workers, even many good paying jobs, there aren't many jobs that someone else couldn't do. People would do well to remember the quote from Martin Niemöller "first they came for the". Either capitalism works or it doesn't: Yes, they just need to pay more, supply and demand. Pay, do it yourself or go out of business, no one has any "right" to cheap labor or a subservient class. That, or admit capitalism doesn't work in its purist form without socialist intervention to keep the charade alive.    

 

I don't believe I ever implied illegal labor should be allowed. However, yes I will agree that some people are going to make smaller wages. Those wages also went a lot further when government policy isn't involved in skyrocketing the cost of housing, healthcare, etc. It is an absolute fact that when the wages of line-level employees skyrocket, so do the costs of everything. Just think of food. Paying your farm workers more, then your distributors, then the grocery store workers, just for a small view. What does that do to food cost? Some of us are more mature to acknowledge the reality vs scream "record profits for the big guy!"

 

Now in the disaster we are in, people are demanding further raises to adjust for the inflation. It's like a catch 22 economics designed by emotional high school students. It's pretty tough to say we needed socialist intervention when you look at the history of our economy and when that has ever helped. Just a few short years ago, our economy was very strong. There were zero hints of socialism. Then the minute we started paying people to stay home, it went to crap. That's not the only reason, but you have zero evidence to back up that socialism helped in the slightest.

 

1 hour ago, Moviela said:

I saw this show before in the late 70's. Bad policies inflated the money at an astronomical rate. Gasoline tripled, real estate interest went to 18%, groceries doubled, and everyone suffered from stagflation.

 

In 2021 history repeats itself. Expect all transportation and hospitality to increase at 1.4x the rate of inflation.

 

It's a shame. The people that vote for and support these policies are never held accountable to the terrible result each and every time. It's that moral right that supersedes common sense, and history. On that basis, they will keep doing it.

[bamaone]

After reading this entire thread I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to avoid this situation in the future is to never have a nation wide lock down of any kind ever again. 

[jetsfan58]

The old Webster definition of a recession is: A significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP (Income, Employment, Retail Sales, etc.).This is nothing, so far, like the Great Depression of 2007. We all lived through and survived that nightmare.   

 

Since the majority of a Recession begins with consumers having less confidence in the overall economy Carnival should be just fine. We all have huge confidence in Carnival and their continued success. One major result from a Recessionary Period is that prices can actually fall. 

 

As a result Carnival should not have to raise prices for us to continue to enjoy their family fun filled products. 

[bamaone]

10 minutes ago, jetsfan58 said:

 As a result Carnival should not have to raise prices for us to continue to enjoy their family fun filled products. 

Carnival is paying more for everything that keeps their business going. Wages, fuel, food, and materials. How can a company survive with negative finances?

[jetsfan58]

9 minutes ago, bamaone said:

Carnival is paying more for everything that keeps their business going. Wages, fuel, food, and materials. How can a company survive with negative finances?

The end result revolves around available cash and the degree to which the first line creditors believe in the Carnival Brand. They will continue to offer sporadic "discounted" deals because still only about 15% of the total US population has ever cruised.

 

Why would they walk away from that potential cash?  

[bamaone]

2 minutes ago, jetsfan58 said:

The end result revolves around available cash and the degree to which the first line creditors believe in the Carnival Brand. They will continue to offer sporadic "discounted" deals because still only about 15% of the total US population has ever cruised.

 

Why would they walk away from that potential cash?  

I agree it’s great to lure new customers with more affordable pricing. But at some point you have to make money or you don’t survive. Carnival is so far in debt  right now they’re having difficulty making payments. They may not be able to wait out a turnaround without price increases to cover operating cost.

[jetsfan58]

38 minutes ago, bamaone said:

I agree it’s great to lure new customers with more affordable pricing. But at some point you have to make money or you don’t survive. Carnival is so far in debt  right now they’re having difficulty making payments. They may not be able to wait out a turnaround without price increases to cover operating cost.

When you keep offering the discounts to new and existing cruisers you are increasing critical mass which increases spending! Rule of Marketing 101. They are still making dollars even though offering the discounts as cruisers are freeing up cash to spend onboard and on the Islands.

 

These high paid Senior Leaders have a lot at stake and they are going to protect the interests of their families, their crews, their stockholders and us!   

[ledges1]

It is rumored that Carnival is in talks with the Saudi investment fund to sell Seabourn to generate cash. The fund already has a 5.1% stake in Carnival.

[cruisingguy007]

5 hours ago, Joebucks said:

Now in the disaster we are in, people are demanding further raises to adjust for the inflation.

 

I'd agree with this, workers have always had the power all along, they have been convinced (Stockholm syndrome) that they should be lucky to have wages at all and should just be quiet, take what is offered and stay inline. I think that's bull, if they need to cut from anywhere, cut from the over bloated executive compensation, which has outpaced worked productivity incentives (many hundreds to one) by a long-shot. These folks can't do it by themselves. Any organization/business is like a football team. Having the greatest quarterback means nothing if the rest of the team feels dejected/underpaid and decide the position isn't worth it. You need O-line, D-line, Db's, WR, coaches, medical folks etc, heck, you need parking lot attendants, cleaners, concessions, the list just goes on and on. The whole production makes the business/organization. Nothing wrong with cast members standing up and asking for a bigger piece of the pie from the over-bloated top end. Worker-bees have always had the power, I'm glad to see some re-balancing and re-shifting back to a more equitable equilibrium.  

[TheSeagoer]

11 hours ago, jetsfan58 said:

The end result revolves around available cash and the degree to which the first line creditors believe in the Carnival Brand. They will continue to offer sporadic "discounted" deals because still only about 15% of the total US population has ever cruised.

 

Why would they walk away from that potential cash?  

It maybe wiser to dock the boats than pay expenses

[Joebucks]

17 hours ago, cruisingguy007 said:

 

I'd agree with this, workers have always had the power all along, they have been convinced (Stockholm syndrome) that they should be lucky to have wages at all and should just be quiet, take what is offered and stay inline. I think that's bull, if they need to cut from anywhere, cut from the over bloated executive compensation, which has outpaced worked productivity incentives (many hundreds to one) by a long-shot. These folks can't do it by themselves. Any organization/business is like a football team. Having the greatest quarterback means nothing if the rest of the team feels dejected/underpaid and decide the position isn't worth it. You need O-line, D-line, Db's, WR, coaches, medical folks etc, heck, you need parking lot attendants, cleaners, concessions, the list just goes on and on. The whole production makes the business/organization. Nothing wrong with cast members standing up and asking for a bigger piece of the pie from the over-bloated top end. Worker-bees have always had the power, I'm glad to see some re-balancing and re-shifting back to a more equitable equilibrium.  

 

In most big companies, if you completely removed all compensation from a CEO (pay, bonuses, and stock options which they are supposed to be creating value in) you are lucky to give the entire workforce $100 total. What you are falling trap to is the ever-popular classism politics. Blame your problems on someone else. Seek the protective wing of someone who tells you what you want to hear.

 

Oh and then once you've removed the CEO or any incentive to run a big organization, watch what happens to the rest of the worker's wages when there is no leader. 

[jetsfan58]

13 hours ago, TheSeagoer said:

It maybe wiser to dock the boats than pay expenses

No way. The industry doesn't want to chance surviving/not surviving another two year layoff!!! 

[TheSeagoer]

11 minutes ago, jetsfan58 said:

No way. The industry doesn't want to chance surviving/not surviving another two year layoff!!! 

They have a fiduciary duty to the share holders. If it cost less to put some ships docked than operating at a bigger loss, they will

[jetsfan58]

8 minutes ago, TheSeagoer said:

They have a fiduciary duty to the share holders. If it cost less to put some ships docked than operating at a bigger loss, they will

That point is certainly well taken. The stockholder value equation will always rule the decision. The stockholders are also human and know the value of "idle time." They are gong to advise the Carnival Leadership Team to keep those vessels moving regardless of the probabilities of success/failure.

 

It's a hard choice but at that level only "cash and green" matter. We can all help by masking up when necessary and following the prescribed rules.